Preamble

The House met at Eleven

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Zambia (Aid)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will take an initiative in the formation of an international consortium to offer aid to Zambia for the construction of the Tanzania-Zambia railway.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): No, Sir. I do not think that this would be appropriate.

Mr. Fisher: That surprises me very much. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this project would be most effective in reducing Zambia's dependence on communications to the south, which we are very anxious to do, and that it is, therefore, of great political importance, and if we took the initiative, would do a tremendous amount to improve our relations with Zambia?

Mr. Prentice: There are two main points to bear in mind. One is that the economic viability of the project has not yet been proved and a great deal more work needs to be done on it. The other is that our available aid, in view of the present restrictions on the amount that we can spare, would not enable us to do anything substantial in relation to this project, which would, of course, be very expensive.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has for increasing financial aid to Zambia, in view of the hardship created there by the sanctions policy against Rhodesia.

Mr. Prentice: I have no plans for increasing financial aid beyond that already promised.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we have a very special obligation to Zambia in view of the effect on Zambia of the sanctions policy against Rhodesia? What is the difference between what Zambia is requesting and what the Government are giving? Will that be discussed when—which I hope will be very soon—the Prime Minister meets President Kaunda?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend is slightly confusing two problems. First, there is development aid, which comes under my Department, in which respect our main effort is in the form of technical assistance. In fact, 2,000 British personnel are working in Zambia. That is the most important need from the development point of view. But, secondly, there is also contingency aid related to the illegal declaration of independence. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, who answered a Question on that subject on 26th March.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Minister realise that even those of us who oppose sanctions sympathise with Zambia in her plight resulting from sanctions? As the Government are prepared to discuss aid and co-operation with such Governments as that of the South Yemen, will they discuss aid and co-operation even with the Government of Rhodesia in order to see whether we can restore economic cooperation in Central Africa?

Mr. Prentice: I am surprised to hear any hon. Member refer to the Government of Rhodesia in those terms. I have said that aid for Zambia related to the illegal declaration of independence is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary.

Sir H. Harrison: Bearing in mind the Government's declared intention of not using force in any way against Rhodesia, will the Minister take into account in any aid given to Zambia that force must not be used by Zambia in the way of terrorists being trained in Zambia and going through Zambia into Rhodesia?

Mr. Prentice: Normally, when the aid to Zambia which falls within the responsibility of my Department is being decided, we take a number of factors into account. Zambia has given assurances on that point on many occasions.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware of the great susceptibility of the Zambian economy to the price of copper, which is extremely volatile? If a deterioration should occur in that respect in the next few years, will he be prepared to take a much more generous view?

Mr. Prentice: The figures which I quoted of personnel serving in Zambia show that we are taking a fairly generous view in relation to what we can afford and to what we manage for other countries. The price of copper has been in favour of the Zambian economy on the whole, and the growth of the Zambian economy in the last two years has been considerably above that of most other African countries. Their greatest need is for skilled personnel, and we are doing a considerable amount to help them meet it.

Swaziland (Aid)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the financial assistance given by Her Majesty's Government to Swaziland on independence.

Mr. Prentice: For the financial year 1968–69 we are providing, subject to Parliamentary approval where necessary, budgetary and development aid totalling £2·6 million, plus technical assistance and loans to help meet the cost of compensation payments to expatriate officials.
We intend to held talks with the Swaziland Government later this year to discuss British aid after March, 1969.

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the talks will be held well before independence? Will they concern a three-year period after independence, as was the case with Botswana and Lesotho?

Mr. Prentice: The dates of the talks are not yet fixed, but will be fixed in consultation with the Swaziland Government. It may be before or after independence, but this will be discussed with them. There are many other cases in which talks have been held after independence, and they have been successful. As to the duration of aid settlements, this will be discussed at the talks.

South Yemen (Aid)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on British aid for South Yemen.

Mr. Prentice: It was agreed at Geneva that, pending further discussions, aid would be continued for six months, that is, until the end of May. As already announced, we expect to resume negotiations with the Southern Yemen Government on aid and other outstanding matters in the latter half of April.

Mr. Wall: When discussing what aid, if any, is to be given to the South Yemen Government, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that British officials on contract have been summarily dismissed and that Federal Ministers and civil servants are in prison, their only crime being loyalty to the then legal Government and its British allies?

Mr. Prentice: We will bear in mind all relevant considerations, including those which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. But we are, of course, committed to holding these talks, although we are not committed in any other way, and I would not like to prejudge what may be said at them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman not only bear in mind but take very seriously the fact that the present régime has sentenced to death its own citizens for no other offence than service to the British rule in Aden? In these circumstances, would it not be indecent to provide any aid at all to the Yemen?

Mr. Prentice: I have said that all these things will be carefully borne in mind at the time.

Mr. Dempsey: Would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that Scots boys belonging to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were killed and cruelly wounded by this very régime not so long ago? Will that be borne in mind before he gives them a single penny?

Mr. Prentice: The whole of the background of recent years and the present situation will have to be taken into account in considering our policy at these talks.

Mr. Fisher: That is a very cynical answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Does he really feel that it is more justifiable to give aid to these people in South Arabia, under all the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), than to give it to Zambia, whose position has been completely prejudiced by our Rhodesian policy?

Mr. Prentice: I have already said that we are committed to holding these talks towards the end of April, and I have also said that I would not want to prejudice their outcome. I do not want to go beyond that, and I have not made any remarks which would suggest any comparison between the need for aid in Southern Yemen and that for any other country.

Ceylon Widows and Orphans Pension Fund

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he is in a position to make any further statement on the subject of widows' pensions payable from the Ceylon Widows and Orphans Pension Fund.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): No substantive reply has yet been received to our representations to the Government of Ceylon on behalf of these pensioners. My right hon. Friend took the opportunity of his recent brief visit to Ceylon to raise the matter with the Ceylonese Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and he was assured that it was being considered.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that the widows of servants recruited by the Secretary of State to serve the Crown are being paid in rupees which have been devalued more than has the British £ and that many of them are in dire straits?

Mr. Oram: Yes. We recognise that. That is the basis of the representations which we have made.

Overseas Service (Pensioners)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many pensioners of Her Majesty's Overseas Service

or their widows live in countries which have not devalued their currency in line with sterling.

Mr. Oram: Comprehensive information is not available. The pensioners concerned receive their pensions from the oversea countries in whose public service they were employed and not all the relevant pension records are available here.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that many of these pensioners, when recruited by the Secretary of State to serve the Crown, came from countries in the Commonwealth and not only from Britain, and that nothing was said on recruitment about where they should live on retirement?

Mr. Oram: I recognise that. My right hon. Friend has agreed to see the association representative of these pensioners and I have no doubt that that kind of consideration will be taken up in their talks.

Mr. Braine: The House has always been very sensitive to the position of pensioners serving overseas and their dependants. In view of what the Minister said earlier about the position in Ceylon, and in view of his answer, will he undertake to have a statement made, soon after we return from the Recess, about how the Government view the whole position of pensioners serving overseas and their dependants?

Mr. Oram: I have indicated that a meeting is projected with the association, and any statement might well be considered following that meeting.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the Minister bear in mind that when these people went overseas they were serving this country as well as the country overseas and that we have to accept full responsibility for them?

Mr. Oram: Accepting full responsibility is a very much wider issue than that raised by the Question on the Order Paper.

Singapore and Malaysia (Aid)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many meetings with representatives of British business interests in Singapore and Malaysia were held either in this country or on


the spot by the senior officials of his Department who recently twice visited these countries and had talks with the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia to discuss Her Majesty's Government's offer of additional aid to compensate for the accelerated withdrawal of United Kingdom forces.

Mr. Prentice: It is not possible to give an exact figure but a number of such meetings have been held both in London and in the two countries, including several with representatives of the Confederation of British Industries.

Mr. Braine: While I am glad to hear that some meetings have been held, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been a great deal of criticism in business circles in Singapore and Malaysia that contact was not made by the Dudley Mission with established British firms which are in a very good position to advise how aid should be suitably employed after the British defence withdrawal?

Mr. Prentice: When Sir Alan Dudley went to Singapore and Malaysia in October last year and again in February-March this year, he was concerned with talking to the Governments of those countries. He was concerned with talking to them about Government-Government relationships; he had a very busy programme, and he concentrated on talks with Governments. But apart from that, there have been a large number of meetings, both in London and in those countries, with very important companies about the part which private enterprise can play in the future.

Mr. Dalyell: Did Sir Alan Dudley or did he not meet British firms? There is an impression abroad that they were neglected.

Mr. Prentice: During the two visits to which I referred, he concentrated on talks with the two Governments concerned, and I am sure that that was right. But other representatives of Her Majesty's Government have talked to business interests in the two countries concerned and to the British offices of British firms who have businesses out there.

Mr. Braine: I must press the matter. While I acknowledge that there have been

some meetings with British business interests who approached Sir Alan Dudley when he went out there, they were told at the time that the discussions were such that he could see no usefulness in discussing the matter with British business interests. That seems to me wholly wrong, in view of the fact that British aid is to be offered to these countries and that British interests out there are obviously in a very good position to advise how it should be used.

Mr. Prentice: I have already indicated that there has been a great deal of contact with British firms and the C.B.I. about the whole question, but I must reiterate that during the two missions mentioned, Sir Alan Dudley and his colleagues were very busy talking on a Government-Government basis about the pooling of aid, the terms of aid and a number of other difficult and complicated questions which had to be settled.

British Overseas Aid

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what has been the total gross cost to public funds of British overseas aid since October, 1964.

Mr. Prentice: £654 million to 30th December, 1967.

Mr. Onslow: Does the Minister not agree that it is high time that the Government gave half a day for a full debate on this large expenditure of the taxpayers-money?

Mr. Prentice: I should welcome a debate on the subject and I hope that the hon. Member will have a word with his right hon. Friend on his own Front Bench about the use of a Supply Day for this purpose. I should welcome any chance to debate this matter and to justify what we are doing.

Mr. Lipton: Is not some of this aid spent on the purchase of goods made in this country?

Mr. Prentice: A great deal of it is and. therefore, I would welcome the chance to have a debate to explain at some length a case for the aid programme, both in terms of the good it does for developing countries and also in terms of the good it does in the long-term interests of the economy of this country.

Mr. James Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Liberal bench welcome expenditure on overseas aid up to the limit that has been announced? However, is he aware that there has been a tremendous change of emphasis in the disbursement of overseas aid from Communist countries in the last year or two in favour of South America and Africa as opposed to Asia and the Middle East? Will he bear this in mind in the disbursement of British overseas aid?

Mr. Prentice: In the disbursement of British overseas aid we are obviously concerned with the pattern of aid from other countries in considering the total effect of the flow of aid from the developed to the developing countries.

Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members on this side of the House would deprecate any diminution in the amount of overseas aid that is given and that we, too, would like to have a debate to discuss the way in which the overseas aid programme is carried out?

Mr. Prentice: I am glad to have that expression of support, which I think reflects the feeling of the majority of hon. Members. I very much welcome the recent initiative taken by the youth organisations of the three main political parties in issuing a joint manifesto on this subject, and that deserves wide support.

Sir D. Renton: Surely, when the Government wish to spend large sums of the taxpayer's money, however well spent it may be—or, as some may think, not so well spent—we should have a debate in Government time?

Mr. Prentice: I would welcome a debate on this subject in anybody's time.

Mr. Whitaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has spent less in total on aid since the war than on defence in one year? Is he aware that many people feel that a more effective way of combating Communism and keeping world peace would be to work towards a reversal of that proportion?

Mr. Prentice: I have a great deal of sympathy with that view—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I hope that it will

become the situation in years to come, when countries generally, and not just Britain, will spend more of their resources on development aid and not on armaments.

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that however valuable aid is, trade is even more valuable?

Mr. Prentice: We must see the two together. The development of these countries depends on the flow of aid and on proper trade conditions.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not time that the Government thought of reaching the 1 per cent. of our national income target which was set a long time ago?

Mr. Prentice: When the target was defined by the first U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference, we were surpassing it and had done for some years. The target has been revised by the recent U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference to mean 1 per cent. of G.N.P. rather than of national income. In that respect we are not reaching it, and nor are most other countries. I agree that we should take the new target seriously and use our best endeavours to reach it in the years ahead.

Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about 5 per cent. of the annual aid which we give goes to developing countries to meet their pension obligations to our former overseas civil servants? Would it not be better if Her Majesty's Government took over this liability, as has every other ex-colonial Power, and so relieve the worries of these pensioners?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I think that, on balance, it is better that we should continue as we are doing at present; that we should make development loans which take into account the liability the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which also take into account their general circumstances.

Mr. William Hamilton: Reverting to the question of a debate on this matter, would my right hon. Friend agree that it might be desirable to await the report from the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which is dealing with these very points, since that would enable the House to be apprised of all the information?

Mr. Prentice: The presentation of that report might be a convenient moment for a debate. In view of the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked for a debate on this matter, I will draw these expressions of opinion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Somali Students (Scholarships)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many scholarships have been awarded to Somali students for the academic year 1968–69.

Mr. Oram: At present none; but with the resumption of diplomatic relations we shall be willing to consider suitable requests.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister constantly keep in mind the significant changes that are taking place in Somalia, such as in the change in the Italian-speaking south to the English tongue, and the need for that country to send many students to Britain for, for example, teacher training and hospital training for nurses?

Mr. Oram: The Somali Government know of the facilities we have for providing technical assistance. As I have said, we will be willing to consider any requests covering the spheres mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Somalia (Aid)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on British aid to the Republic of Somalia.

Mr. Prentice: During the recent visit of the Prime Minister it was agreed in principle that some technical assistance would be made available to the Government of Somalia. Details have not yet been worked out, but an officer of my Ministry is shortly visiting Somalia for discussions.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he may find himself in a cleft stick over the financial limit of £205 million overall? Is he aware of the need for space to manoeuvre, as it were, in this matter and will he consider some of the schemes in the former British Somaliland; for example, that for improving

water supplies to the old capital of Hargeisa?

Mr. Prentice: In view of the tightness of the financial situation, I have had to make the decision that we could not do anything at the moment for Somali in terms of capital aid. However, we can do a great deal in terms of technical assistance and, to plan that effectively, one of my officers will shortly be going to the country.

St. Lucia (Sand Flies)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what technical or financial aid he proposes to give to St. Lucia, to clear the Gros Islet district of sand flies.

Mr. Oram: Reports on the sandfly problem in this area have recently been made on the initiative of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and with the co-operation of the Ministry, following which we have received a request from the Government of St. Lucia for technical assistance to examine the feasibility of control measures. The Ministry's Medical Research Adviser is currently visiting the Caribbean and is discussing this request with the Government of St. Lucia and others.

Sir H. Harrison: While thanking the Minister for that partially reassuring Answer, may I ask him to note that the Beach Hotel, the main hotel there operated by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, is sited on a marsh, that many of the people who stay there are bitten by sand flies and cancel the remainder of their bookings, which creates a bad impression for the tourist trade which is so much required to help the economy there?

Mr. Oram: I am aware of the particularly bad effect that this is having on this hotel and the consequent effect it is having on the tourist industry. It is with this in mind that we are willing to consider all the help that can be given.

Uganda (Mr. G. B. Sayle)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development under what clause or section of the Overseas Aid Service Scheme he refused to designate


Mr. G. B. Sayle, of Putney, for flying service in Uganda.

Mr. Oram: The requirements for designation are laid down by the Minister under Section 2 of the Overseas Development and Service Act, 1965.

Mr. Jenkins: Why has my right hon. Friend refused to designate Mr. Sayle for this service? As he is a British subject and has been resident in this country for a year since his return from Canada, and as he does valuable crop spraying work, why has my right hon. Friend refused to designate this willing person to go to Uganda to carry out this valuable work?

Mr. Oram: One of the important considerations for designation is normal residence in this country. It is quite clear from Mr. Sayle's record that he does not qualify under that heading.

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order. In view of my hon. Friend's highly unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Programme Companies (Acquisition and Merger)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to enable him to require the Independent Television Authority to withdraw the licence of any programme company whose control is materially changed by acquisition or merger.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter and at least amplify his brief but inadequate Answer? Is it not a fact that the award of a licence can represent an award to print money? Is it not desirable that this award should be given to a company only if the nature of the company remains the same? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that it is necessary to look at the matter again. My hon. Friend is, I think, really concerned with something developing

from a merger and I suggest, therefore, that as he is probably thinking in terms of a monopoly position being established, he should direct his remarks to the President of the Board of Trade.

Dr. Winstanley: In this connection, would my right hon. Friend require the Authority to publish the bids of the successful contracting companies so that when they commence transmitting in July their performance can be measured against their previous promises?

Mr. Mason: I cannot promise to do that.

Mr. Whitaker: Why should not the enormous profits of the independent television companies be used to finance the B.S.C. so that old people, pensioners and the public alike are not called upon to pay the licence fee?

Mr. Mason: That has been considered but, so far, without success.

Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the principle that is involved here—that the whole object of the Independent Television Act was to ensure that the distribution and control of programme companies is widely spread? Does not every merger that takes place go some way towards defeating the purpose of the Act?

Mr. Mason: No, not at this stage, but if it developed into a monopoly position I believe that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be the right person to examine it.

B.B.C. (Independence)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to give complete independence to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and especially its overseas services, from governmental control or interference.

Mr. Mason: The B.B.C. already has complete responsibility for matters of programme content, in the external services as well as in the home services.

Mr. Hamilton: How, then, does my right hon. Friend explain the fact that Sir Anthony Eden, as Prime Minister in 1956, threatened to introduce legislation at the time of the Suez crisis to take over the B.B.C., and that had it not been for


the firm management at the top of the B.B.C. e might have achieved that sinister objective?

Mr. Mason: I know that a book has been published alleging such things, but I cannot comment on the accuracy of Press reports emanating from it.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend look at the rather hair-raising revelations contained in Mr. Harman Grisewood's recent book about the pressures applied to the B.B.C. by the then Conservative Government in 1956 during the Suez crisis? Does not my right hon. Friend blink that there is a very strong case for a thorough investigation into those revelations?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir, because the B.B.C. has always retained its independence in these matters.

Mr. Tilney: Does the freedom of the B.B.C. include the power to accept advertisements so as to relieve local ratepayers of the cost of a local radio service?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Local Commercial Radio Stations

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take regarding proposals by local authorities to set up local commercial radio stations.

Mr. Mason: There has been one such proposal. My Department will refer the local authority to the White Paper on Broadcasting (Cmnd. 3169) of December, 1966.

Mr. Boston: Can my right hon. Friend say what he proposes to do about that proposal? Will he bear in mind that many of us are very concerned about any introduction of commercial stations and the effect they could have on local newspapers, because they would siphon off advertising revenue? Will he confirm that there is no intention—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention of introducing them?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. An 8-station experiment is being conducted by the B.B.C., and no further developments in local radio will be authorised until the experiment has run its course and has been evaluated.

Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the public will be very anxious to know his attitude to commercial radio? Does he subscribe to the view of his predecessor that the entertainment of the people should not be the by-product of the search for profits?

Mr. Mason: We are dealing here with one proposal, and hon. Gentlemen know whence it came. I shall refer them to the White Paper, which is present policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

"I'm Backing Britain" Postmark

Mr. Onslow: asked the Postmaster-General at how many post offices the "I'm Backing Britain" postmark was taken into use and at how many it is still in use.

Mr. Mason: It was used at 125 post offices throughout the United Kingdom from 9th February until 29th February.

Mr. Onslow: In view of his announcement yesterday, does not the Postmaster-General think that it would be as well if this postmark were withdrawn, or does he feel that any firm claiming in this way to be backing Britain has the right to raise its charges by 8 per cent.?

Mr. Mason: In this case, we chase the largest post offices. Every region was represented. We gave 21 days for the operation, and 84 million letters were franked. That was the Post Office's contribution to backing Britain.

Postal Charges (Increases)

Mr. Bryan: asked the Postmaster-General when he will announce the proposed increases in postal charges.

Mr. Mason: I made a statement yesterday.

Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when answering questions yesterday, he said that his future pricing policy would be based on a combination of the criteria of the prices and incomes policy and the policy laid down in the White Paper on the nationalised industries? Does not the scale of yesterday's charges prove once and for all that such a combination is an impossible contradiction as, indeed, was clearly stated in paragraph 14 of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. As I said yesterday, the scale of these charges will affect the cost-of-living index only by·01 per cent.

Mr. Costain: Does the Postmaster-General appreciate that the rise in the cost of telephone charges puts a very serious handicap on the elderly? His predecessor was looking into the question of how elderly people could be helped with their telephone charges: will he give an assurance that he will continue in that way?

Mr. Mason: I thought that I answered that point fully yesterday afternoon.

Exchange Equipment (Bulk Supply Agreements)

Mr. Bryan: asked the Postmaster-General by what means he plans to introduce an element of competition into the bulk supply agreements in respect of exchange equipment.

Mr. Mason: The percentage of orders which may be placed with firms not parties to the agreement is being increased from 10 to 25 per cent. My Department will play a more decisive part in the allocation of orders, taking account of quality and delivery performance; and there will thus be an element of competition based upon these criteria within the agreement.

Mr. Bryan: Is there to be any competition in price?

Mr. Mason: Price, quality and date of delivery are always taken into consideration.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one way of introducing an element of competition 
would be to set up in our development areas, State-owned factories producing this kind of equipment, as we promised at the last election?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the proposal, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take note that this is a useful first step where we have stepped up the reservation clause from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. so that more firms that were outside the initial agreement will be now able to compete very effectively for Post Office orders.

Giro (National Insurance Benefits and Family Allowances)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Postmaster-General if he will extend the service to be provided by the Post Office giro, so as to use it for payment of National Insurance benefits and family allowances.

Mr. Mason: Arrangements are in hand to pay some benefits by giro payment order when the service begins. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security does not consider this a suitable method for the payment of regular long-term benefits.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does not the Postmaster-General agree that the operations of the National Insurance Fund and, indeed, of the Pay-As-You-Earn Income Tax system, have become completely obsolete and incomprehensible; and that the advent of the Post Office giro is a golden opportunity to review the whole basis of cash transactions between the individual and the community so that in future they can be handled by electronic data-processing equipment?

Mr. Mason: The giro system will deal initially with unemployment and sickness benefits. The hon. Gentleman's initial point is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Onslow: Where those transactions involve sending mail under the frank "O.H.M.S.", will that mail go at first-or second-class rate?

Mr. Mason: That supplementary question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Arts Council (Grants from Public Funds)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered the information which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Antrim, South, on the matter of grants from public funds by the Arts Council; and what action he proses to take.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I have seen the newspaper article which the hon. and learned Gentleman has sent me. Some of the statements are not correct, but whether grants are made is entirely a matter for the Arts Council.

Sir Knox Cunningham: If the Daily Mail is correct in the example it gives—and I have no reason to think otherwise—is it not scandalous that £1,800 of public money should be used to subsidise a magazine so squalid that W. H. Smith and Company will not sell it?

Miss Lee: I have said that some of the information in the article is inaccurate. It would be most improper for us to go into this matter in detail here, but we are very fortunate in having an Arts Council which says in its report that mistakes are inevitable but that it would be a counsel of despair not to go on with its job. I am not taking as accurate anything that has appeared in this article.

Dr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of making it a condition of giving Government grants to dramatic companies that those companies undertake a certain amount of provincial touring?

Miss Lee: I can assure my hon. Friend that our great companies are very eager to do this, and as far as is possible with the money at our disposal we want to do everything we can to see that the regions have as many visits as possible paid to them by the large companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Murder Trials (Presentation of Facts)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the fact that in the recent case of R. v. Sokol at Leeds Assizes the effect of recent legislation was to prevent any public knowledge of the facts relating to a case of murder being available to the Press and public either at the committal or trial stage; and whether, in view of the need that public justice be seen publicly to be done, he will introduce amending legislation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): A circular was sent to chief constables on the provisions of the recent Criminal Justice Act, recommended that in circumstances such as those of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers the prosecution should outline the facts in open court before sentence was passed. In view of the recent Practice Direction to this effect by the Lord Chief Justice, which I have brought to the attention of all courts of assize and quarter sessions, I see no need for legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As very serious constitutional issues were brought to light in this case, and as what was done under a very learned and experienced judge is apparently perfectly lawful, would it not be better in due course at any rate to put the matter completely beyond doubt and to secure by legislation that public justice is done in public?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not differ from the right hon. Gentleman in believing that this is a serious matter, but I certainly would not want to give any promise of reconsidering the Act passed only last year after detailed consideration of the consequences of passing it—it was passed in the full knowledge of what would arise—because for very good reasons it would not be proper to outline in answer to a Question now. It was fully considered at the time.

Civil Defence (County of Huntingdon and Peterborough)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper.

Sir D. RENTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money Huntingdonshire and Peterborough will be authorised to spend on civil defence matters during the financial year 1968–69; and how much of it will be contributed by the Exchequer.

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Someone has altered my Question. "Huntingdonshire and Peterborough" should be "the County of Huntingdon and Peterborough".

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to correct the Question, not to charge anyone with altering it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): Discussions are proceeding with the local authorities and it is as yet too early to say how much will be available for each.

Sir D. Renton: Why is it too early? I understand that these matters have already been the subject of discussion and have been negotiated. Is it not a very meagre sum that is being allowed? Is that possibly the reason why we are not being given a straight answer at this moment?

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. There have, of course, been discussions, but the authorities have not yet submitted detailed estimates for 1968–69. Until they do so we cannot give the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

London Pilotage District (Trinity House Byelaw)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that, before giving a decision on the new byelaw proposed by Trinity House concerning the classes of pilots in the London pilotage district, he will consult representatives of shipowning interests on the safety of the route for large ships through the Straits of Dover recom

mended in his Department's Notice to Mariners No. 760(P) 5/1967 compared with the coastal route on the north of the Straits.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): This application is under consideration and I hope to reach a decision shortly. Interested parties, including the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, have been consulted, and all factors particularly those relating to the safety of navigation are being taken into account.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of superintendents of shipping companies have expressed the view that the new byelaw will cause shipping not to use the safest route? Will he bear this in mind because a certain number of pilots have said that over a period of 10 years this might cause an accident on the scale of the "Torrey Canyon" accident if this byelaw is brought into effect?

Mr. Mallalieu: We consulted all parties, the representatives of the Chamber of Shipping and so forth, and we have all the opinions and facts. On the basis of that we will make the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Third London Airport

Mr. Boston: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now give details about the form of the inquiry into siting London's third airport; what its terms of reference will be; when it will be set up; when it is likely to be ready to start taking evidence; and how long it is likely to take to complete its work.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: We have, as promised, already had some discussion with the Opposition on this matter and we hope to make a statement after the Easter Recess.

Mr. Boston: Can my hon. Friend say how soon after the Recess a statement is likely to be forthcoming? Will he confirm that ample time will be given once the inquiry gets under way for the people to present their views, because this is a more extensive operation than that of a normal public inquiry?

Mr. Mallalieu: I understand the second point made by the hon. Member and I certainly give the assurance that a statement will be made after Easter.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consult me before he comes to a final decision?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will do that with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my hon. Friend take note that there is a great need for adequate publicity to be given in those areas which are now threatened with the possibility of a third London Airport? Will he give an undertaking that areas in Kent will have full publicity given to the fact that this threat hangs over their heads?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Whitburn Pit, County Durham (Redundant Miners)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Labour what retraining facilities will be offered to miners losing their jobs when the Whitburn pit in County Durham is closed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I understand that a large number of these miners wil be offered jobs at adjoining pits and that comparatively few of them are likely to require work outside coalmining. Where retraining at operator level is required, it can usually best be given by their new employers, with help of the Industrial Training Boards and of the Government grants which are available to assist such training in development areas. Those miners who want and are suitable for the accelerated training for skill given by Government training centres will be able to obtain it at the Felling Centre or at any other of the 38 centres where the trade of their choice is taught.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the more than 200 men over 55 will not be excepted from the opportunity of having training courses merely by reason of the fact of pension facilities?

Mr. Hattersley: I give my right hon. Friend that assurance with pleasure, and I give the assurance to men over 55 that their age is no reason to assume that they are not suitable for training.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT BILL, TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY ACT AND INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION BILL (COST)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the nine economists who have made representations to him on the cost on current and capital account to public funds of the Transport Bill, the Transport Holding Company Act, and the Industrial Expansion Bill.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have explained that each of these Measures is concerned with the need to secure more economic use of our national resources and that each is a necessary contribution to the overall objective of strengthening and modernising our economy.

Mr. Ridley: Now that the Chancellor has to cover all nationalised industry lending with taxation, would not the Prime Minister agree that these three Measures will add £300 million a year to the taxpayers' bill and taxes will have to go up by that amount next year to cover that?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, we do not accept that argument, but I dealt in some length with it in my reply to the nine correspondents who wrote to me. Probably it would be better to study the letter, so, if the hon. Member and the House agree, I will place a copy in the Library for hon. Members to study.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the enormous social and economic costs of the present transport anarchy and not be deflected from the main provisions of the Bill?

The Prime Minister: There is no question of deflection from the main principles of the Bill. Among the costs which have to be borne by the community, by the taxpayer and the State as a whole, is the continuing large deficit of British Railways which must be met by


some means or other. The Bill is designed to attract more traffic on to the railways.

Mr. Maudling: In his reply did the Prime Minister make clear to these gentlemen the estimate of capital and current costs involved, as he was rather reluctant in his Answer to a Question by me on that point not long ago?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better await the letter. I do not set out the specific figures in detail, but deal item by item with the points made in their letter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek a meeting with the President of France in order to discuss the present situation with regard to the United Kingdom's application to join the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Answer I gave on 2nd April to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig).—[Vol. 762, c. 74.]

Sir Knox Cunningham: Without the support of France, what hope is there of making progress with our application? Since we have now dropped the European pilot at the Foreign Office, might we not drop the master, too?

The Prime Minister: I answered the more sensible parts of that question last week, as the hon. Member will see if he looks up what I said. Our dealings so far as entry to the Common Market is concerned are and must be with the Six as a whole. I think we have all formed our own view about the nature of the underlying political opposition at this stage to our entry which is to be expected from the Goverment of France. I do not feel—nor does the Foreign Secretary, who is as passionately keen that we should get into Europe as his predecessor was—that a separate approach to the Government of France would help.

Mr. Henig: Would not my right hon. Friend think it at least a good idea to try to see whether this country and

France can get together while there is still time, to see if together they can in some way influence the future pattern of Europe before other forces and other powers, perhaps less reputable, seek their opportunity?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that last year I had two very lengthy discussions with the President of France on these questions. Recognising as one does his strong feelings about American penetration of Europe, I was able, I hope, to bring home to him—if not to convince him—that the most important thing is the development of strong European industries less dependent on the United States than some leading French industries—aircraft production, computers, and others—are today. I do not think that a further discussion with him would help to reach a basic agreement on what his views about independence from America mean in terms of the single industrial market we need.

Mr. David Howell: Far from getting together with de Gaulle, does not the Prime Minister agree that the time has come when waiting for de Gaulle is not an adequate policy either from the British or European point of view? Does he not agree that the stage has been reached when more specific proposals, perhaps more specific than the technology institute, are now needed to respond to the Benelux proposals, the Fanfani Memorandum and other aspirations for European unity?

The Prime Minister: I agree that that is the approach. We have warmly welcomed the Benelux proposals, and have discussed them with each of the three Governments concerned with formulating them. We are hard at work in discussions with the C.B.I., among others, to give specific content to our latest proposals on technology. I agree with the hon. Member that this should be our next step.

Mr. Roebuck: Has not my right hon. Friend studied the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Pilgrims' Dinner on Monday in which he is reported as saying that we have no chance of getting into Europe and that we must sit tight and keep our fingers crossed? Is that the view of the Government, and


if not, will the Prime Minister see the Chancellor privately on his return?

The Prime Minister: I have already seen the Chancellor. I think my hon. Friend's account of the speech is a rather loose translation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH AND UNITED KINGDOM TERRITORIES (REFERENDA)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Prime Minister why different criteria govern the holding of referenda in Commonwealth and United Kingdom territories.

The Prime Minister: Because each Commonwealth Government is independent and responsible for its own constitutional arrangements, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that when I suggested in the House on 4th August, 1966, that a referendum should be held in Gibraltar this was turned down, and yet a year later the referendum was held? Will the Prime Minister therefore reconsider the Government's recent decision not to allow the Scottish people a referendum to express their wishes regarding the future government of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, no one is, as in the case of Gibraltar, making a take-over bid for Scotland. It was being widely stated in the United Nations and elsewhere that the people of Gibraltar did not want to maintain their relationship with the United Kingdom but wanted to join Spain. That was why we changed the policy, after consultation with the local authorities in Gibraltar. By this time it was their view, though it had not been their view before, that there should be a referendum to make quite clear what the wishes of the Gibraltarians were.

Mr. Boston: Cannot this form of public opinion poll in Britain be just as misleading as any other form of public opinion poll between General Elections? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of introducing referendum systems in Britain?

The Prime Minister: It is, I think, contrary to our general practice under

successive Governments. Whatever the requirement, when it is a question of satisfying international opinion—for example, in the case of Gibraltar; for example, as many have urged, in the case of Rhodesia, though we have put forward a different means of testing opinion there—we have an appropriate way of doing it, but it should not govern our own Constitution.

Mr. Heath: In that case, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that if the people of the Falklands and British Honduras also want to have a referendum about their constitutional position, the British Government will agree?

The Prime Minister: That will always have to be considered. At the present time, it is not our view that it is necessary, but my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary have already given guarantees about the interests of the people and the views of the people of the Falkland Islands.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREPARATION FOR RETIREMENT

Mr. Archer: asked the Prime Minister whether he will co-ordinate the work of the Minister of Health, Labour and Social Security to make preparation for people's retirement during the 10 years prior to their reaching retirement age.

The Prime Minister: Preparation for retirement is essentially a matter for the individual. Sir, but in so far as they have responsibilities in this field, the Departments concerned already work closely together. Nevertheless, I think the House generally will recognise that there are a number of aspects of social, health and welfare matters where the division of responsibility between Departments can complicate the furtherance of desirable policies. It is for this reason that, as the House knows, I have decided to amalgamate the Ministries of Health and Social Security and have asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to supervise the planning and timetable for the amalgamation.

Mr. Archer: Would my right hon. Friend go a little further and agree that


in principle the economic, social, occupational and medical problems of age are best tackled before they materialise and while there is still a prospect of remedying them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, this is certainly true and important. The Question asks about the co-ordination of the work of these Ministries. Two of them are, as I have said, to be amalgamated and there are already existing adequate arrangements for consultation between what will now be the amalgamated Department and the Office of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the unanimous opinion of his medical advisers on the subject of retirement is that this should be a gradual reduction in activity over a period of years and that only in the most exceptional cases should it be a sudden sharp cessation of work?

The Prime Minister: That is obviously highly relevant. The amalgamated Department will be able to take the views, not only of its own medical advisers, but of many people who work in this field, locally as well as centrally.

Mr. William Hamilton: What consultations, if any, took place between the Ministries of Social Security and of Health prior to last week's announcement of the co-ordination of these Departments?

The Prime Minister: It is not usual to indicate to the House internal consultations on these matters, but I thought it right to take this opportunity of informing the House of the merger and the reasons for it.

Mr. Onslow: Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of his Cabinet colleagues have well co-ordinated their plans for his retirement at an early date?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICES (AMALGAMATION)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister why he has decided to merge the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 28th March to a Question by my right hon.

Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).—[Vol. 761, c. 332 and 1726–31.]

Mr. Blaker: Does the Prime Minister recall that when I urged him on 6th June of last year to make this change he refused to do so? Will he accept my congratulations on his change of mind and explain what has occurred since last June to account for it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This was a decision which, as I have said many times in the House, obviously had to come one day. I did not think that it was right at that time. I do think that the time has now come; and, after the reactions I have had from Commonwealth countries, I think that this announcement has now been accepted without some of the dangers that a number of hon. Members and I myself foresaw at an earlier stage.

Mr. John Lee: Does not my right hon. Friend think, whatever the organisation and methods advantages of this merger, that it increases the suspicion of the Government's growing indifference to the Commonwealth, especially when coupled with the about-face on the Common Market and our weak-kneed treatment of the Rhodesian rebellion?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must be responsible for the words he uses in his supplementary questions. I do not feel in any sense that in the Commonwealth there is a feeling that we are turning our backs on the Commonwealth. The decision on the Common Market is one which has been discussed with the Commonwealth under successive Governments. I have nothing to add to what I said in the recent debate on the question of Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In order to allay apprehensions in dependent territories falsely claimed by foreign Powers, would the Prime Minister consider that some of them might wish to be associated with the Home Office rather than with the Foreign Office, as are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?

The Prime Minister: I know that this is an idea which has been advanced on a number of occasions in relation to Gibraltar. It is not our view currently that that is the right answer, as I have


said more than once in the House, but it is a matter which at the right time might be considered. It is not a proposal which we would be putting forward at this time. Nor should we propose to move in such a direction unless it was the clear wish of those in Gibraltar which up to now it has not been, though there are certain moves of opinion there.
With regard to allaying anxieties in other territories, it is important that we shall now have one Minister—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—responsible both for negotiating with potential take-over bidders and also for the welfare of the inhabitants.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that there is high-level Ministerial co-operation with other Commonwealth countries in the institutions of the United Nations, as there always used to be in times past, to great advantage?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This, I think, is one of those areas where there is the very closest consultation, and this has been revived and furthered by my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, who has regular meetings with his Commonwealth colleagues. My right hon. Friend will be the first to understand the difficulties we have in some of our Commonwealth consultations—for example, on the question of Rhodesia. Were we not taking the line that we are in the Security Council—that is going to be hard enough—we should be in an impossible position with the rest of the Commonwealth at the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRESS CONFERENCES)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision to be concerned directly in the work of the Department of Economic Affairs, he will adopt the practice of holding regular weekly or fortnightly Press Conferences on the state of the nation's economic recovery.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his decision to be concerned directly in the work of the Department of Economic Affairs, he will in future hold Press Conferences at regular intervals to give a report of the progress being made in the recovery of the economy.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is highly desirable to try to restore faith in Parliament? To that end, does not he think that a useful first step might be for him to start off a series of frank and honest admissions of his blunders that have led us to our present sorry plight?

The Prime Minister: The noble Lord will recognise that I do not accept the premises in that question. As to the proposal for Press conferences, I have, as all my predecessors had, what is far more important—that is, twice-weekly sessions of Questions in the House. That is better than having Press conferences to deal with what the noble Lord has in mind.

Mr. Heath: Is it true that the Prime Minister has now relinquished his overall responsibility for the Department of Economic Affairs?

The Prime Minister: The answer to that is "Yes", except—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly. I took over [Interruption.]—this is a very serious matter. I took over that responsibility last August because I was not satisfied with the co-ordination among the industrial departments on the industrial work. With the new changes I have made, which I think are pretty well known to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman, of course I retain my present and previous responsibility for the coordination, not only of industrial matters, but of economic matters in general; and this will continue. But I am all the time trying to take steps to ensure that the industrial departments are able to do even more than they have done so far for industrial productivity and efficiency. Hence the changes announced last week.

Mr. Heath: Is it not thoroughly unsatisfactory that both on the occasion when the Prime Minister took overall responsibility for D.E.A. and on the occasion of his relinquishing it now, no statement of any official or formal kind was made and neither did he come to the House to tell it? It was done in both instances purely by guidance to the Press. This is a deplorable procedure, and I ask the Prime Minister never to do it again.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not take instructions from him, or the country would be in a very serious mess. As regards the first occasion, the House was not sitting, and I dealt with it when we came back. On this occasion, knowing that these Questions were down, I intended to take the opportunity—[An HON. MEMBER: "Really."] If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I have said, I invite him to come and look at the announcement in this file. I am really sick of the hon. Gentleman's tittering.

Mr. Thorpe: In order that Parliament may have a greater say in economic affairs, will the Prime Minister give serious thought to a Select Committee on economic affairs which could go wider than the D.E.A. and possibly include the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour?

The Prime Minister: We are pretty fully manned up with Select Committees and Standing Committees at present. Indeed, the House will be aware of the difficulty in finding enough hon. Members able, because of the devoted work which they give to existing Committees, to man some of the legislative Standing Committees. We are experimenting with a wider range, but it is essential that some of our important and historic Committees should not be short of hon. Members. I do not think that it would be the general wish of the House that we should extend the system of Select Committees, for example, to cover economic affairs, as we have abundant facilities for debates, as well as the annual marathon on the Finance Bill.

Dr. Gray: In trying to improve the public relations and Press relations of the Government and Government Departments, will my right hon. Friend look at the possibility of employing more working journalists in the information services and fewer public relations officers who come from differing and non-journalist backgrounds?

The Prime Minister: I cannot immediately think of many, or any, such public relations officers, though I may be wrong. Certainly, those most closely associated with me were working journalists with great experience of the Press.

Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister said that he intended to make the announcement to the House in the course of answering these Questions. As he could not have been certain that the Questions would be reached, why did he not put the statement in his original Answer, instead of relying on supplementaries?

The Prime Minister: I was very optimistic that I should answer all my Questions today, in view of the usual absenteeism on the last day. But I was wrong about that. The dedication of hon. Members who had put Questions down to me in being in their places is most commendable and welcome.

Mr. Biffen: Reverting to the original Question by my noble Friend the member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), in view of the Prime Minister's reluctance to have such Press conferences, will he take this opportunity to tell the House by what number the civil servants in the Department of Economic Affairs will be reduced after the transfer of many of its functions now to the new Department of Employment and Productivity?

The Prime Minister: It will be reduced. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question to my right hon. Friend, I shall try to have an answer for him. I have not got it in my head.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend take it that we are grateful to him because he, at least, takes these decisions during Parliamentary sittings so that we we may question his actions, whereas, when the Opposition take major decisions, it is usually done during Recesses when we cannot question them?

The Prime Minister: Decisions taken by the Opposition have not much relevance to anything, and certainly no constitutional validity even when we can understand them. What was serious was that some of the most momentous decisions taken by the previous Government, touching the welfare of millions of our people, were announced in the Recess. I think, for example, the decision to introduce the Rent Bill, which was announced, of all places, at a Tory Party conference, where, obviously, it had far more acceptability than it had subsequently among tenants when it became an Act of Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for the first week after the Recess, and welcome him to his first business statement?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Frederick Peart): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remark. I shall do my best.
The business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 23RD APRIL—Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill.
Second Reading of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords], of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill [Lords] and of the Rent Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
Motions on the Fatstock (Amendment) Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 25TH APRIL—Debate on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Certain Contracts made with Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. and on the related Report from the Public Accounts Committee.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords], of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill [Lords] and of the Rent Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Kingston upon Hull Order.
FRIDAY, 26TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Heath: I have two questions. First, the new Leader of the House has made no announcement about the following Monday, which has been the usual custom. I hope that this does not mean that the Government will no longer make that: sort of business announcement.
Second, why has not the Leader of the House given us a second day on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill? In all quarters of the House it was shown last week how strongly hon. Members want a second day. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor undertook to

give the fullest consideration to it, and he gave the impression of thinking about it favourably. I did not think that the new Leader of the House would be even less flexible than the old. Will not the right hon. Gentleman go back and consider the matter again, especially now that the Finance Bill is published and there will be many hon. Members wanting to express their views before the Bill goes into Committee?

Mr. Peart: On the first point, it has not been customary to do it. I am advised that, at a time when there is a longer interval than usual between the announcement of business and the Monday, it has not been done. However, I shall look at the precedents again if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to press it. I am informed that the practice is not as he has suggested.
As regards the Finance Bill, the principle will be debated on Second Reading, and it has, in effect, been discussed during the four days' debate on the Budget Resolutions on which the Bill is founded. I should have thought, as it is not exempted business, that hon. Members were afforded reasonable opportunity.

Mr. Heath: The debate on the Budget has never been taken as the same thing as the debate on the Finance Bill, which is the legislation embodying the Resolutions which we discuss in the Budget debate. Moreover—I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that it is not exempted business—although it is exempted business, to discuss a Bill of this kind all through the night instead of having two proper days for debate cannot be satisfactory. Will not the Government give two full days for a proper discussion of this important Measure?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. After all, going back to 1947, it was the Labour Government at that time who extended the Budget debate from three days to four. I believe that the time we have allowed is adequate, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House does not seem to recognise that the main difference is that, instead of our having what the Prime Minister still refers to as


the Finance Bill marathon on the Floor of the House, the Bill is to go to Committee, with a very small number of hon. and right hon. Members present. If the Government want to have any support for this reform at all, they ought to give the House a proper occasion for debating the Second Reading. It is a matter of the utmost financial and constitutional importance.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that for 14 years it has been the practice to have just one day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Things are different now"] I recognise that the situation has changed. I have made the announcement. I would only say that we will see how it goes and, if the situation has to be changed on another occasion, we shall consider it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I cannot go beyond what I have said.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House spends far too much time considering monetary matters and not enough considering other matters? Will he find opportunity and time for consideration of the Motion standing in the names of several of my hon. Friends and myself suggesting that the Government should consider emulating the foreign policy of the Swedish Government?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Government of Sweden reaffirming that country's policy of neutrality and believes that the British Government could learn much from a study of this policy; notes with appreciation and approval the Swedish Government's firm attitudes and actions in rejectting the policy the United States Government has been following in Vietnam, in condemning racial persecution in Southern Africa and in protesting against the suppression of democracy in Greece; and urges Her Majesty's Government to follow the example of the Swedish Government in consistently asserting the validity of a moral position in international affairs.]

Mr. Peart: That is a matter other than the timing of Business. I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not good enough on the Finance Bill to say that he will see how it goes. The effect

of leaving only one day in the circumstances of the Bill going upstairs to Committee is that the majority of hon. Members will have no chance to express their views until the Report stage. It will then be too late for the Government to promise Amendments at another stage because there is not another stage effectively on the Finance Bill. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that to deny people their traditional right to discuss the main financial Measures of the year is an outrage?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's extravagant remarks. I have explained the position and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of sending Bills upstairs is to truncate the business in the House. The matter has been debated over many years, and many prominent Conservatives when they were on this side of the House advocated this procedure. Now it has been decided to send the Bill upstairs, what is the point of having one more day?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the advice of my right hon. Friend. This is true. The whole purpose of sending the Bill upstairs is to get it debated and to save time on the Floor of the House. The procedure will enable hon. Members to have adequate time for discussion.

Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House will be saving on the Floor of the House between eight and 16 days on the Committee stage. Can he not out of that time give one extra day for the debate on Second Reading? The Government's business must be in a disgraceful state if he cannot possibly spare one extra day out of the dozen which he is saving for a proper discussion on Second Reading.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Member is being persistent. I cannot accept what he says. For the reasons I have already mentioned, there will be adequate time for hon. Members to discuss the Bill in detail. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late."] It is not too late. The debate, as I have said, will afford hon. Members plenty of time to express their views, and their detailed views can be expressed in Committee upstairs.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can the Leader of the House say, in view of the large amount of time which is going to be saved, whether we shall have an early debate on Vietnam, and would he consider that the share of this honourable House in the discussion and control of foreign policy has been eroded almost to nothing in recent years?

Mr. Peart: I have announced the Business for the first week after the adjournment. There is no opportunity in that week for such a debate, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the views of my hon. Friend.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Reverting to the Finance Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify his use of the expression "will see how it goes"? That is an expression which is normally a prelude to the possibility of constructive second thoughts or helpful concessions. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what such second thoughts or concessions could be in the context of what he is now proposing?

Mr. Peart: I assume I shall be the Leader of the House for some considerable time, and therefore I would always look at Parliamentary procedure with an objective mind. This is sensible. I think the decision to make this reform is right, and for that reason I cannot concede what the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to do, but I would like to see how events go.

Mr. Dempsey: Could I refer my right hon. Friend to the fact that some of us were led to believe that we would have a debate either last week or this week on the Scottish storm damage. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the Herculean efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, homes still have not been repaired and there are still attics without any covering?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going into a debate. He must ask for a debate.

Mr. Dempsey: Could my right hon. Friend give some idea when we are likely to have this delayed debate, in view of the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Peart: I know it is very important to my Scottish colleagues and to my hon. Friend. I cannot put it in the Business for the first week. I will convey the urgency of the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it will not be in that week's Business.

Mr. Thorpe: May I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new job and applaud his undertaking to approach all matters with an objective mind. On the strength of that recently given undertaking, may I press him once again on the Finance Bill? Is he aware that the importance of the Finance Bill is one of the reasons why it has heretofore been taken in Committee of the Whole House? Would he not agree that this indicates the exceptional importance of the Measure? In view of the fact that many of us would wish to see the success of his predecessor's reform of taking more matters upstairs, it is important that hon. Members on both sides should have time to debate the Finance Bill before it goes up into Committee. Would he therefore, as Leader of the House, give very serious consideration to allocating two days?

Mr. Peart: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I thank him for his kind remarks. I cannot add to what I have already said that, as Leader of the House, I will always approach matters in an objective way.

Mr. Dickens: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the early day Motion on the need for a code of conduct for the private sector of the economy, which stands in my name and the names of 78 of my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House, while fully supporting the Government's regional policies as an instrument of full employment and economic growth, notes that Government assistance to private industry is currently costing the taxpayer £2 million per day; and expresses grave concern about the lack of social responsibility evident in recent company mergers, with their subsequent elect on factory closures and unemployment; calls upon the Government to enter into urgent discussions with the Confederation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress to prepare a code of conduct applicable to all private firms in receipt of public funds,


to include trade union recognition, joint consultation with trade unions, local authorities and regional economic planning councils, particularly on proposed factory closures and manpower redeployment, compensation for redundancy, transferability of pensions, payment of transfer allowances, the phased introduction of equal pay and staff status for manual workers, company manpower and training policies; and, thus, to make the private sector of the economy more fully accountable to the nation.]
Can we expect a debate on this after the Easter Recess? Are we having a White Paper and are the Government intending to move in this direction?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say that there will be a White Paper. I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I have looked at this on the Order Paper. It is not in the first week's Business, and I am only answering for that, but I will consider carefully what he has said.

Mr. Ridsdale: The answer of the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that he will see how it goes has left the House in greater doubt than when he first used the expression. Will he give an undertaking to consider the matter before this year's debate and not leave it until next year?

Mr. Peart: There is no question of leaving the House in doubt. I am afraid I cannot rearrange the Business of the House as I have been asked to do. [Interruption.] An hon. Member for one of the Northern Irish constituencies is always making rude remarks.

Sir Knox Cunningham: South Antrim.

Hon. Members: You have no right to be here.

Mr. Speaker: When hon. Members wish to correct each other, will they do it in a Parliamentary way?

Mr. Peart: I always tried to be courteous to questioners before I became Leader of the House, and I shall continue to be so. I merely say I have made up my mind on this, but later we will have to look at how new developments work out. This is sensible.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Member who is Leader of the

House and who has a responsibility for the back benchers and their privileges, consider that because the Finance Bill is going upstairs a great number of people who want to raise points will not be able to do so, and will he consult the Deputy Leader to see if something can be done now, this year?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said. There will be a Recommittal, there will be Report stage, there will be adequate chance for right hon. and hon. Members to put forward their points of view. I cannot accept the reasoning of the hon. Member.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my right hon. Friend make arrangements for an early statement by the Minister of Health on the way he intends to deal with the Royal Commission on Medical Education?

Mr. Peart: I will certainly consult my hon. Friend on that matter.

Earl of Dalkeith: Has the Leader of the House consulted the Opposition parties on his proposals for two Scottish Standing Committees in order to secure their agreement, and is it expected that they will be dealing with something more appetising than sewerage?

Mr. Peart: I have had no consultations personally on that. If this is a matter on which hon. Members feel very deeply I shall be delighted to do so and to have talks through the usual channels.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Budget debate only 20 hon. Members on this side of the House were able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye? Does he realise that only 20 hon. Members on this side will be on the Committee? Is he really trying to stifle discussion? Does he not realise that all of us want two days for the Finance Bill?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not make a speech.

Mr. Whitaker: With regard to the Race Relations Bill, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there will be sufficient time for the three totally irreconcilable Conservative attitudes to be expressed? Will he also give an assurance that unless the Bill is extended to Northern Ireland hon. Members for Northern Ireland will neither speak nor vote?

Mr. Peart: I am afraid that that is another matter that I cannot answer from the business point of view.

Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman, following up his reply to my hon. Friend, give an undertaking that the closure will not be moved on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Peart: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience when he was in Government that no Leader of the House could give that specific assurance at this stage.

Mr. Heath: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman tell my hon. Friend that he would be bound to be able to speak?

Mr. Peart: I said that the hon. Member will have all the democratic rights of any other hon. Member to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, is not this becoming a debate? Now that the Leader of the House has given the answer several times, is it worth proceeding with this?

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the House itself. I have to protect, as far as I can, the Adjournment debates, but I cannot stop business questions.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Costain.

Earl of Dalkeith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this not a case where democracy is very much at stake? Ought we not to do all we can to safeguard it?

Mr. Speaker: I have no comment to make on that, which is obvious.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Sir Knox Cunningham rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had his Business question. He might let other hon. Members have theirs.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that my constituents pay exactly the same taxes as any other constituents in the United Kingdom and have a right to be heard on the Finance Bill here?

Mr. Speaker: On the first part of the Question, I am not the Chancellor of the

Exchequer. On the second all hon. Members and all constituents represented by hon. Members have exactly the same rights in this House.

Mr. Costain: Can the Leader of the House tell us by what means he will announce the Business for the first Monday, and if he has not got a debate settled, can he not give another day for the Finance Bill?

Mr. Peart: I cannot do that. As I said, it is not customary—precedents have been set—to make an announcement at this stage.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with his predecessor about the serious and continued delays in debating the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with the nuclear reactor programme? Will he carpet the Ministers of Technology and Power for their failure to publish their replies to the Report so that we can debate this very important matter?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Lord President has consulted me on this. I will look into it very carefully.

Mr. Biffen: Can the Leader of the House tell us by what methods he proposes to disclose to the House the scope and authority of the new Ministry of Employment and Productivity?

Mr. Peart: A Transfer of Functions Order will have to be debated, and we can discuss it then.

Mr. Jopling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says "We will see how it goes"? I am sorry to come back to this again. What criteria will he use? Will he at least give an undertaking that if a substantial number of hon. Members have not been called when we get towards the end of the first day's sitting he will then allow more time?

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman is only repeating what other hon. Members have said.

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House recognise that his flat refusal to take any notice of representation by the Opposition on a major piece of legislation and a major debate during the year


bodes ill for his future as Leader of the House?

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is being so testy and childish.

Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he moves the Closure at the end of the debate on the Finance Bill in view of the very important debate the following day on the contracts situation with the Bristol Siddeley Company?

Mr. Peart: It is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House to do that.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the remainder of the present Session, a second Standing Committee shall be constituted for the consideration of Bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:
That the said second Committee shall in respect of each Bill allocated to it, consist of not less than Twenty nor more than Fifty Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, of whom not less than Twenty Members shall represent Scottish constituencies; and in nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to their qualifications and the composition of the House:
That all Bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee shall be distributed between the two Committees by Mr. Speaker.—[M. Peart.]

12.25 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I should like to ask the Leader of the House to withdraw the Motion so that we may be given an opportunity to debate it. It has only now appeared on the Order Paper. If it had appeared on it before I should have wished to table an Amendment to it. As it is Private Members' Business which follows I am anxious not to take up the time of the House. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider withdrawing the Motion now and moving it again after the Easter Recess so that we may discuss it. If not, I have some assurances to seek from him about it.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I am afraid that I cannot at this stage withdraw the Motion, but I should like to have talks with the hon. Gentleman afterwards.

Mr. Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Bills he proposes to put before these two Standing Committees. should like to put the very serious point that under the Motion as the right hon. Gentleman has tabled it a Committee could be appointed consisting of only 20 Members, and if that is so, the 20 Members, according to the Motion, would all represent Scottish constituencies.
I think that such a Committee places the Committee of Selection in a very difficult position. It is supposed to reflect the


composition of the House. According to custom and usage the Liberal Members of the House do not get representation on a Committee which is as small as 20 members. We have always accepted that as fair. But when it comes to a Committee which is exclusively Scottish and we represent one-fourteenth of the constituencies in Scotland, it cannot be allowed to pass. We should not have a Committee of only 20 members relating to Scotland if it does not have a Liberal Member on it. We cannot have major legislation affecting our constituents going through the House when we have no right to speak on it. I ask for an assurance about this, in which case I shall not press my opposition.

Mr. Peart: I think I could do that, but the Motion is in the usual form. It aims to set up a second Scottish Standing Committee to consider Private Members' Bills. Standing Order No. 61 provides for only one Scottish Standing Committee, which is engaged on a Government Bill, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland-) Bill. A Private Member's Bill, the Highlands and Islands Industry Bill, is awaiting its Committee stage, and it is this Bill which will be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee being set up today. It is hoped to start the Bill on Wednesday, 1st May. I should have thought that we should have had agreement here.

Mr. Steel: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I point out that the very fact that it is the Highlands and Islands Industry Bill makes my point even more important? The right hon. Gentleman will recognise, surely, that the bulk of the Highlands is represented by Liberal Members. It would be intolerable for that Bill to proceed in this way with no representation, and with no undertaking of representation, from those constituencies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can intervene now, but he cannot make a second speech.

12.28 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: It seems to me that the House is owed an explanation by the Leader of the House for making a completely new departure from normal procedure apparently, according to his answer to Business questions, without any consultation with the

Opposition party. If he wants to introduce a change of this kind, I should have thought that he should be expected to justify it and tell us what kind of legislation he will put before these Committees. Should he not at the same time take into account the fact that, due to the new changes in the Finance Bill procedure, Scottish Members will be very thinly represented indeed? In fact, I understand that there will be only one Conservative Scottish Member. This is very poor representation, no matter how good that one representative may be. Bearing that in mind, would it not be much more sensible for him to consider diverting more Scottish Members on to the Finance Bill Committee instead of having two Standing Committees running in parallel. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why he is making the change.

Mr. Peart: The Scottish Office informed me that this had been agreed. However, in view of the feeling of hon. Members and what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has said, I am prepared to adjourn this. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: May I say one word to those who have Adjournment debates? I deliberately made the timetable for the first debate longer than the others, because I anticipated that there might be some time occupied at the beginning. My prediction of the time involved has been exactly right, and now the debates will all be the same length. The first debate will end at 1.15 p.m., and the others at the times set out on the Order Paper. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to keep to the times. I must be fair to the hon. Members who have the last Adjournment debate.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. The intention was to provide an hour and a quarter for the first debate. Those of us who want to speak in this very important debate affecting our constituencies were not responsible for the long string


of questions addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which almost constituted a debate. I think that we should have the time originally allotted to us.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened carefully to what I said. I said that I made the first debate end at 1.15 p.m. because I anticipated that between 11 a.m. and the beginning of the debate there would be some business.

Orders of the Day — SEATON CAREW (POWER STATION)

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to debate the question of Government delay in announcing a decision to authorise the building of a power station at Seaton Carew, and whether a station to be built there should be nuclear or coal-fired. The general controversy on the issue has caused great anxiety in Durham County. The House will accept that anxiety is one of the poisons of human life, and with the dark shadows of economy everywhere hope itself sometimes appears to be gasping for breath. One can hardly put more on people than they can bear in unfavourable circumstances, especially when they are frustrated.
Such an elementary fact means that they cannot do freely what they expect to be able to do or are bewildered when they do not understand the situation and what is demanded of them. Having in mind the sequence of events that is spread before us on the issue of Seaton Carew, I suppose that a good photograph is always conditioned by a good exposure, but I am bound to say that the restless stir and commotion of the mind has been aggravated by statements made by the Central Electricity Generating Board's planning officer, Mr. Peter Williamson. In deciding what must be done, he was reported in the Newcastle Journal of 28th March as having said:
We have no intention of building a coal-fired station.
In the same interview this C.E.G.B. official is also reported as having said:
If we are refused planning permission to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew,

the first thing would be for us to build it in the North-West.
The first comment I want to make on those statements is that whatever motive there is of subduing any aspiration for an objective of a coal-fired power station, those statements have not yet been refuted. This leads me to ask, "Is it to serve the purpose of an executioner of a coal-fired power station?", and further, "What right has this official to say that the Board of a nationalised industry has no intention of building a coal-fired power station, when we all know, or are given to understand, that this decision will be taken at the highest Government level?"
The second of his statements which I have quoted sounds suspiciously like an attempt to assert overriding authority. If I understand the English language correctly, what Mr. Williamson is saying in effect is, "The Government may stop us building a nuclear power station, to help the coal industry in the North-East, but if they do we shall build it in the North-West instead, so that the Government will not get their way in the end." This requires the most stringent examination. In any analysis, it has always been part of the argument for nationalised industries to be fully accountable to the public for their actions. But with the greatest of respect I submit that the chief instrument of public control has always been conceived to be Parliament itself. This constitutes a powerful sanction, and quite clearly we all recognise that if Parliament is dissatisfied then it must come to a clear decision as to what is wrong and put in train the appropriate steps to rectify matters.
Therefore, I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he will say that this C.E.G.B. official has been reprimanded for making public statements about important matters which the Government, and the Government alone, are considering at the highest level. The matter should be put beyond any reasonable doubt, and it is time the Government made it clear that they are masters of the show.
There are other disquieting features of the report of the Newcastle Journal to which I have referred. I always believe that nothing happens without cause, and


nothing ever happens without leaving behind some results. As a consequence, we are often obliged to search for facts, and put them into their true perspective in regard to events that follow. It seems that the C.E.G.B., without awaiting the Minister's approval for its proposal to build a station at Seaton Carew, has spent 1½ million on advanced site work. I make no complaint about that whatsoever, because we were given to understand that Seaton Carew was a possible site for a power station, and, of course, we accept that it is necessary to take into account the power load forecasts for future requirements to satisfy industry's demands in the North-East, and to attract a diversified range of industry. But, being aware of unsatisfactory arrangements, a great range of information is required for satisfactory judgment, and, up till now, the flow of information has proved to be inadequate. Why, then, has the C.E.G.B. gone ahead with this expenditure? Is it not pertinent to ask, "Is it not true that the site preparation at Seaton Carew has been made in anticipation of a favourable Government decision for nuclear power?"?
It has been widely divulged that the C.E.G.B. could leave the site or even sell it. It has also been repeatedly said that a decision to put Seaton Carew on coal would not help the coal industry before 1974. because the station would not burn an ounce of coal before then. That is perfectly true, as everybody knows, but this is not the real bone of contention. The C.E.G.B. argues that a nuclear power station would save £1 million a year by comparison with one on coal. But some of us would be very interested to know the basis of this calculation. We have in mind the estimated costs per unit sent out from Dungeness B, the first station to be based on the advanced gas on-oled reactor. They have already gone up by 25 per cent. since the station was first announced 2½ years ago. With this dreadful record of runaway costs at one station, which will not generate a unit of electricity for at least another two years, how can the C.E.G.B. possibly be sure that Seaton Carew will in fact generate at the forecast costs? How can it be sure that it will get its saving of £1 million a year? But let us assume for the sake of argument that it will. I would like to ask, what would be the cost of creating at least 8,000 new jobs

in Durham for those who will not be needed. In addition to that figure, there is the vital livelihood of the future of thousands of school leavers to be taken into consideration and the wide range of communities whose livelihood is based on and around the coalfield.
That cannot be dismissed as sentimental nonsense, because the cost of supporting people in new jobs which would have to be created would far exceed the £1 million a year the C.E.G.B. might save. The Government have had an inter-Departmental working party on the social costs of Seaton Carew. I am not going to dwell on the social consequences. They will be well visualised. But can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tell us something about the working party's conclusions? Can my hon. Friend also say whether a nuclear station will really produce savings for the community as a whole, even if it saves money for the C.E.G.B.? Could we be given the total sums involved?
There is another important economic aspect. The National Coal Board put in an offer to supply coal at 3¼d. a therm delivered to Seaton Cafew. This caused a few eyebrows to be raised, but it was a carefully worked out proposal. The fact of the matter is that the reconstruction of the coastal collieries has meant that men and management have been concentrated at the pits with large reserves of coal.
The coal is capable of being won by highly intensive mechanised methods from working coal faces, producing high bulk output at high productivity in the 1970s. By then, coal will be pouring out like water from a tap. It is in this respect that I need to stress that the nation has invested a great deal of money in these pits. They are a great national asset. Over £30 million has been spent on these collieries during the last few years, which leaves one wondering whether they are to be abandoned for the sake of a purely theoretical financial saving that might or might not accrue from a nuclear station; or, to put it another way, to use the dictum of Machiavelli—a fallen contestant should be either so crushed that he will never be able to rise again or so reconciled that he will never want to.
But the overall effect which the loss of the possible Seaton Carew market would have on the Durham Divisional Board's sales could mean that standing charges in the coal industry would be spread over a lower total tonnage, and the net result would be a marginally higher coal price for all consumers.
There is another reason why the decision on the type of fuel to be used should favour coal. We are given to understand that a nuclear station would cost in the region of £130 million. We all know that capital is desperately scarce. It is needed for all kinds of socially desirable purposes. But coal-fired stations are not nearly so expensive in capital costs. In fact, it would be possible to build a coal-fired station of the same capacity for about two-thirds of the cost. I think myself that the Government will be doing the Chancellor of the Exchequer a favour if they choose coal instead of nuclear.
Let me make a plea to the Government. If it looks likely that the balance of advantage is in favour of a nuclear station, will they allow the cost estimates and the technical assumptions to be examined by an independent inquiry before a decision is taken? I submit that plea because there is so much doubt about nuclear power cost estimates. The National Consultative Council for the Coal Industry, representing the trade unions, management organisations and the National Coal Board, has asked for an independent inquiry of this sort into nuclear costs generally—not just Seaton Carew. Even the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology made a similar recommendation.
So far the Government have not acted on these recommendations, and I would humbly suggest that the Seaton Carew project would be a very suitable one for independent examination. If the valuable outlet for coal is to be lost, if this should be so, then only an independent inquiry will satisfy that nuclear power is really going to be cheaper than coal. We believe that this is the only way to prove what is and what is not false economy in the interest of the nation.
Such a need is now imperative and, as it is to the Government that we look for action, my final plea is based on the in-

evitability of a ship changing its direction after the turn of the rudder. A change for the fullest use of coal at Seaton Carew would be a helpful economic tonic and it would be one blessed with a vision of much more secure livelihood for all those concerned.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) on initiating the debate and on the substance of his argument, it appears to me that those of us who speak in the debate are wasting our sweetness on the desert air. I should have thought that a matter of this sort, affecting the mining industry of the county of Durham and also the industrial development of Tees-side, might have justified the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who has just been appointed to the task of dealing with all matters concerning fuel and power.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power has no authority. It will not matter one tittle what he says today. He cannot give us a decision—and what we want is a decision, one way or the other. I shall not argue the merits or demerits of a power station based either on coal or nuclear energy. It has been argued over and over again. Statistics have been bandied about; whether they are correct or not I am unable to say.
There could be an independent inquiry. The proposed decision should not be left to the Chairman of the C.E.G.B. or even to the Chairman of the National Coal Board. As it happens—and from the speech of my hon. Friend it is obvious—it is not going to be left to the Government to decide at all. Outside organisations with vested interests are to come to a conclusion and the Government will be compelled to accept it. I am not prepared to accept that, and if that is what the Government are going to tell us today I am not even prepared to listen to it.
I hope that the miners of Durham and the industrial elements on Teeside will note what has happened today. This is the kind of message which is going to be conveyed to my constituency, which is the one primarily concerned. I am not going to convey the message; it will be


on the record, and it will be for the miners of my constituency and of Durham County to draw their conclusions.
I do not want to say much more about it. I was hoping that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who has just been appointed, would be here so that I could congratulate him on his appointment and say something about the need for a decision on this important issue. But he has not appeared and a matter of this sort should not be left to a Parliamentary Secretary, however able he is—and I am not complaining about lack of ability in my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
I raised a point of order earlier, Mr. Speaker, about whether adequate time was to be provided for a debate of this kind. You came to a decision, and I accepted it, although the complaint will finger for some time in my memory. I shall not discard it hurriedly. I do not think that we have been properly treated, least of all by the Government.
I do not like it. I am a loyal and devoted supporter of the Government—no one more so. I have bent over backwards in their support. But this is an attitude I dislike, and when I dislike something I say so in forthright fashion so that it shall be on the record. I do not apologise for that. I shall not bother any more about it now. After what I have said, I am not going to listen to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, because he is unable to speak with authority and give a decision—and it is a decision we want one way or the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has advocated that we should have an electricity generating station based on nuclear energy and he is entitled to his opinion. On the other hand, there are some of us who want that station based on coal. I am not arguing the merits of it. What we want, to remove uncertainty on Teesside and in the County of Durham, is a decision.
I say this before I conclude, and the Parliamentary Secretary can convey it to his Minister—or, for that matter, to the Prime Minister. I have a suspicion that the Department did not want a debate today. That is my suspicion. It is a

very strong suspicion. But I shall not provide the evidence. That is my conviction. If that is the attitude of the Government, I repeat that I dislike it, and I will have no further part in it.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: During the past two or three minutes I have put aside a complete speech which dealt with the very important matter which faces the North-East. That speech was devised to try to convey, in gentle terms, the kind of thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has just said. It was a reasoned argument. It accepted that during the past few months every possible detail of the question had been examined.
If there is one thing about the North-East that the Minister of Power must understand, it is that whereas different Members of Parliament might have different ideas about what must be done, they are united in saying emphatically that when a decision has to be made—and it is the responsibility of the Government—we are not prepared to be put off any longer. That is the situation as we see it.
It would be quite remiss of me to go into the technical arguments about the advantages of nuclear power. It would be remiss of me to go into the cost benefit studies which have been made. It would be quite wrong of me to make known to the House the general trend of opinion arising from the outcome of the Interdepartmental Committee, because there is not one new piece of information which anyone, either inside the Government or outside it, could get together and examine.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) are in the Chamber today.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: And the hon. Member for Orpington.

Mr. Leadbitter: And the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), whose contribution on the Select Committee I read with great interest. His service there was


important to the kind of discussion that we had.
Therefore, I want to put a simple question to the Parliamentary Secretary. I have been put off in the House time and time again. I have been put off by the Prime Minister in asking when a decision would be made. The odd thing about it is that from time to time I get different answers. When I put those answers together, none of them makes sense.
The last reply to me from the Prime Minister was that it was not expected that a decision would be able to be taken for some time. On the very same day I got a Parliamentary Answer to a Question from the then Minister of Power, who is now Minister of Transport. He said that he could not make a decision until the load estimates had been considered. Both those answers are nonsense. That is not the way to treat a Member of the House of Commons, because the load estimates have nothing whatever to do with a decision.
The application for consent was placed before the Government under Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, as amended, as long ago, I think, as March last year. The load estimate—the nature of the estimate, the forward consideration of load and of energy demand and supply—has nothing at all to do with the question that we are putting to the Minister: when will he make a decision?
If the Minister says that the station has to be coal-fired, for God's sake let him say it. If he says that it has to be nuclear, then for God's sake say it. But at least let him have the guts to come to a decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon went into the question with a good deal of care in a speech lasting a quarter of an hour. It is not the Government's convenience which is the question, it is not Members of Parliament who are put to some inconvenience. The end product of this exercise is that men and women in the North-East are getting damned sick of the uncertainty.
We have a remarkable, wonderful programme of industrial improvement in the North-East. The tragedy is that it is not keeping pace with the rate of decline in the basic industries. On the one hand, the

Government have a record of which to be proud, but, on the other hand, they spoil it because, for one reason or another, they dare not say, "This is the decision."
I will say why. Apparently, they are dead scared of the political argument. They are dead scared of the miners' lobby and of the conflict arising out of the logical and considered alternatives which have been put by other people, both inside and outside the House of Commons. The Government should evaluate the worth of Members of Parliament and people who have considered this question with a little more sense of responsibility. We can take the answer. We want it. It is right and proper, therefore, that it should be given.
I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to say that the time has come to make the decision. We cannot wait any longer. We do not intend to wait any longer. The new Minister of Power might as well get himself on record as dealing with this question efficiently and do what ought to have been done some months ago.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this debate must finish at 1.15 and that we still have to hear the Minister. Mr. Willey.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I will respond to your invitation, Mr. Speaker, and be brief. I support my right hon. Friends in what they have said. I have repeatedly raised this question at Question Time and have repeatedly had unsatisfactory replies. We must get a decision.
I wish to emphasise two points. In the replies which I have received, it has been stressed that a whole series of complex studies were going on. What are they about? They are about load factor. Surely, that has been settled. Two years ago, the Central Electricity Generating Board came to a decision. What more does the Minister want done about the load factor? Is he saying that the Generating Board was wrong before? If it was wrong before, it might as well be assumed to be wrong about a host of other things, too. It is simply prevarication to say that a load factor must be examined further. We must get a decision.
The other point is the social cost-benefit analysis. Let us be frank: this is a political decision. It needs a political decision from Ministers, and it must be taken. Above everything else, I emphasise again, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, that we want a decision. The whole of the North-East:s prejudiced time after time because we cannot get a decision on important matters affecting the North-East. This is one of the most important of them.
I de not cast any reflection on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but unless he has something constructive I o say or has brought from the Minister a message bearing a decision, he would be ill advised to take up the time of the Rouse.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: These delays have a very serious consequence and hon. Members would do well to bear it in mind. In the case of Hinkley "B" power station the decision to go ahead was delayed for about a year, and as a result the C.E.G.B. had to pay many millions of £s more for the station than it would have done if the tenders had been obtained later. If there is to be a serious delay in going ahead with this station, we ought to call in all the tenders and ask that they be re-submitted. With the rate of technological progress in nuclear power, we could get a much cheaper station than any of the tenders so far submitted. That is why the date is vitally important.
I want to draw the hon. Gentleman's Mention to what is happening in the United States with the development of high temperature reactors. Gulf General Atomic is going ahead with the construction of a 1,000 megawatt high temperature reactor which will be far cheaper than any other type of reactor at present in operation. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the reports of the Brussels Assessment Meeting of the high temperature reactor last year, he will find that the differences are startling, even in comparison with the most up-to-date A.G.R. that we have on order.
The calculations show that for a twin reactor station of 1,056 megawatts, the capital cost would be £62 per kilowatt, and the generating cost would be -364d. per kilowatt hour. That is substantially

cheaper than anything that we have under construction. It is a reason for examining the bid put in by the Nuclear Power Group for a high temperature reactor to be erected on this site. I agree that all the information should be made available to the House, so that a proper decision can be reached, and can be assessed by each one of us in the light of our knowledge.
If the tenders are published we know what the answer is, whether it should be coal, an advanced gas-cooled reactor or H.T.R. My guess is that the H.T.R. tender would be several million £s cheaper than the nearest A.G.R. tender, which in turn would be much cheaper than the coal-fired station. While I recognise the social and economic factors referred to by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), if we want to regenerate the North-East, we have to have it by having the cheapest type of station we can get. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that the Government will agree to publish these tenders, so that there is full information, upon which the House can come to a decision.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: This is a Tees-side matter. We must certainly bear in mind the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) as well as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), to do with the whole future of the North-East coal industry. We are also concerned with Tees-side development. In my area there is concern in the nuclear power engineering industry. The lack of decision about Seaton Carew shakes to the very core the whole of that industry. Seaton Carew was a station about which a decision had been taken and we have attempted to evaluate that decision today.
We know that there will be a further station at Heysham. The indecisiveness over Seaton Carew means that there is a shortfall which the engineering industry has to face in design, research, and shop floor workers. We know that the three consortia participating in improving our national nuclear programme are feeling a very strong draught, created by the lack of decision at Seaton Carew. One consortium has shed design and shop floor labour, and we are very concerned in my constituency about this, because


fewer orders will be available. Our concern is about the disruption of the national nuclear power programme, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some idea of what is to happen in Seaton, irrespective of the coal versus nuclear power argument. Where do we stand and how does the industry stand in the future, in a reduced nuclear power programme?

1.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I must express my regret that the Minister is not able to be present today, but he has been at Cabinet discussions during the morning and it would not have been possible for him to be present. When a decision is made on this question it will be for the Minister to announce it to the House.

Mr. Leadbitter: With great respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has left the Chamber with his mind very much made up about what he considers to be virtually a discourtesy. In giving an explanation is it not important to bear in mind that the excuse of a Cabinet meeting might not be acceptable, since the Prime Minister was answering Questions here until 12 o'clock?

Mr. Freeson: With respect that is a matter for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to raise if he has any queries about my explanation, not for the hon. Member for The Hartle-pools. Cabinet meetings do not entirely consist of meetings chaired by the Prime Minister, as the hon. Member should know. There are other forms of Cabinet business to which Ministers have to attend.
I was about to say that no conclusions have yet been reached and no decision made on the basis of the study being undertaken by the Government. When the decision is made, it will be announced to the House by the Minister and a full statement will be made on the main points relevant to that decision.
This undertaking has been given to the House previously and it will be adhered to. There will be a complex of decisions, not just one. This is not just an issue of whether the station should be coal or nuclear powered but whether the next power station should be built at Hartle-

pool or elsewhere and when it should be started. There are various statutory planning procedures to be completed, as well as consultation with the Chairman of the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council. All of this has to be done before a final decision.

Mr. Willey: Mr. Willey rose—

Mr. Freeson: I have a very limited amount of time available to me and I hope to able to deal, even if only in general terms, with the points raised by hon. Members. I hope to be allowed to do so.

Mr. Willey: I have a point to put which will help us in the North. The hon. Gentleman said that there will be consultation with the Chairman of the Economic Planning Council. When is this to take place? In other words, will the Chairman be notified of a decision, or will he really be consulted?

Mr. Freeson: The undertaking to consult with the Chairman has been given in the House previously, and I am simply reminding the House of that undertaking, which will be part of various aspects of decision-making.
The most important thing is the question of load forecasts. The load forecasts must be considered in consultation with the Electricity Council and the C.E.G.B. in order to decide when would be the best time to start a power station. It would not be correct to say, as I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) indicated, that this is the only thing being studied by the Government.
There is a whole complex of factors, taking into account total community resource aspects of the decision which we have to take. The building of a new power station, whether nuclear or coal, creates jobs in itself and will therefore contribute to the economy of an area in the process of transition, with redundancy and redeployment involved for the people there. Even if Seaton Carew is to be coal-fired it will not stop the rundown of the mining industry, for, as has been said, were such a station to be ordered now it would not burn 1 lb. of coal before 1974.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman


tell us when this decision will be taken? Nobody is trying to argue what it should be, but the effect of this endles delay due to bureaucratic intervention on behalf of the Ministry is holding up the object of the exercise, which is the prosperity of County Durham. When will the decision be taken?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has repeated the point made by several other hon. Members in the Chamber, and I will deal generally with it in a few moments. I wish first to deal with some of the other points.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) to the question of nuclear power costs. There has been a good deal of controversy about the relative costs of nuclear power and conventional generation, and very thorough studies have been carried out on these over the last year or more. These have been reproduced in the Appendices to the Report from the Select Corn-mince on Science and Technology. It has been suggested, both in that Report and by hon. Members since in the House and elsewhere, that there should be independent studies. But our view is that the need is to be both independent and expert. We have independent expertise in the Chief Scientist's Division of the Ministry of Power and within the Atomic Energy Authority and the C.E.G.B., which has more experience in this field than any similar body in the world.
The studies in which these bodies have been involved were completely impartial, and, while we shall take note of the suggestions made, we are not likely to be readily persuaded that there is a case for a further study when we do not believe that such a study would add to our knowledge already gained from expert and independent sources.
The studies already published show no reason to doubt the original decision to go ahead with a second nuclear programme. It is not relevant to compare the costs of nuclear power stations in this programme with the costs of coal-fired stations built earlier, when construction was cheaper. We should corn-pare the cost of stations to be built in future, of whatever kind. On all the evidence available, nuclear costs will be lower than they have been in the past. The construction costs of conventional

power stations, of whatever kind, will not be so low as in the past.
The big question concerning the coal industry is what will be the future cost of coal. Let there be no mistake here: there has been a remarkable improvement in productivity in recent months, which augurs well for the future. Detailed studies of the National Coal Board's forecasts of future costs are in hand as part of the analysis which has been taken aboard in looking at this question in every respect. The N.C.B. has offered coal at 3¼d. a therm, but we have to consider whether it will be economic for the nation on these terms. The C.E.G.B. has pointed out that if only a limited amount of coal can be supplied at a low price it would pay it to use it in its existing stations to displace dearer coal.
Particular reference has been made to the site preparation works. The Minister has made it quite clear that statements attributed to an official of the C.E.G.B. do not in any way prejudice the study still in hand or any decision which is to be taken.
I wish in the last few moments to deal with the point which has been stressed time and again about the need for a decision. This point is taken very seriously. I will personally convey the feelings of hon. Members to my right hon. Friend. My hope is that it will not be too long before a decision is taken. But it is the job of the Department and of the Government to have the study which has been put in hand completed and thoroughly evaluated before a decision is taken. I do not think that any hon. Member would thank us if we took a decision before the study had been completed. When it has been completed, we will report to the House. As I have indicated, we will make as full a statement as possible on the relevant aspects of the decision taken.

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us when he will announce a decision? "Before not too long" is not good enough.

Mr. Freeson: Clearly, if the study has not been completed, I am not in a position today to give a date; that is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have listened very carefully to the prepared brief of my hon. Friend, which I have noted with some interest. I have drawn my own conclusions. Why cannot he make the decision now?

Mr. Freeson: That is beside the point. It is not for me to make a decision now. We have to await the completion of the report being prepared; and the Minister will make a statement to the House, not me.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the report be published?

Orders of the Day — GASTRO-ENTERITIS (TEES-SIDE)

1.16 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the problem of the gastro-enteritis outbreak among infants on Tees-side during November and December last year.
I am sure that we should all like to convey our sincere condolences to the parents of the 15 children who died. All of us on Tees-side have been concerned at the brevity of the Report produced by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, and there is in the area a good deal of anxiety and bewilderment following the paucity of information that we have been able to glean from the Minister of Health and the Regional Hospital Board.
I was particularly disappointed that the Minister would not let me join the deputation which met him following the publication by the Ministry of Health of the Report of the Regional Hospital Board. On the day that this meeting took place with the other three Members of Parliament, I received a message to say that the Minister was not prepared to see me with them but would see me on a separate occasion. I should have thought that on a matter of this gravity, in which my own constituency was involved—12,000 of my constituents live in the Borough of Tees-side—nothing which was to be said in front of the other Members could not have been said in front of me.
This has given rise in my mind to suspicions about why this arose and the necessity this morning to raise the matter so that the Minister can be more definite

in the House since the people on Tees-side would like a great deal more information than they have so far received. When 15 children have died, I should have thought that a Report containing only 16 lines on foolscap paper, with some background notes to editors, was totally inadequate and completely misunderstood the situation.
I have a particular interest in this problem, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us the problems with which the medical profession was faced, because antibiotics which should have effectively controlled the illness failed to have any result on the children, and eight antibiotics were used before one was found to give the necessary results.
In July, 1966, in a debate in the House, I pointed out the dangers of transferable drug resistance and particularly with reference to the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. I should like to read the very brief notice put out by the Regional Hospital Board on the results of the inquiry. It stated:
The Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has made an inquiry into the circumstances which attended the outbreak of gastroenteritis among infants on Tees-side during November and December, 1967. In brief, the results of this inquiry, which have been studied by the Ministry of Health, show firstly that this was a community outbreak of only moderate proportions; secondly, that the deaths which occurred were mainly in weakly babies suffering from some other abnormal condition and were not large in number when compared with similar outbreaks which have occurred from time to time in the past; thirdly, that the clinical care of the babies appears to have been skilfully managed even though it was complicated by infection with intestinal organisms resistant to the action of several antibiotics; fourthly, that local arrangements for the interchange of information during outbreaks of infectious disease need review. This review is now being undertaken by the Regional Hospital Board.
Then there were some notes to editors.
We felt that this was inadequate. Although I am sure that the medical profession on Tees-side did all that they could to combat the outbreak and to control and reduce the risk, for which we are all grateful to them, they ran into the problem of transferable drug resistance. This is a field to which the Minister must urgently give attention, and he should recognise the dangers which lie ahead. Some very important work has been done in this field and a great deal of research


is being done, but I must stress the concern of those in the medical profession and draw the Minister's attention to some of the articles which appeared at the time of the outbreak.
The Leader in the British Medical Journal on Saturday, 3rd February, 1968, headed "Transferable Antibiotic Resistance on Tees-side", said:
Resistance of bacteria to drugs, often to several at a time, can be transferred from organisms of one species to those of another by contact in the intestinal tract. This process can nullify the potential benefits of antibiotics … The subject was discussed in this journal in 1965… in connection with the studies by E. S. Anderson…
It went on to say of Salmonella typhi-murium:
This organism, originally resistant to two drugs, successively acquired resistance to several more, and caused 1,200 known infections in animals, mainly calves, and 500 in man, these being clearly derived from animal sources. Its resistance was transferable, and this illustration of how an organism can become drug-resistant in cattle and thence spread to man, with the likelihood of transferring its resistance to other human intestinal bacteria, led to a demand for ' a re-examination of the whole question of the use of antibiotics and other drugs in the rearing of livestock. '
The New Scientist at the same time, under the heading "A bitter reckoning", said:
The outbreak of gastro-enteritis on Teesside which has resulted in the death of 12 ciildren is caused by an organism that is resistant to the antibiotics which would normally be used. An expert argues here that this resistance may have resulted from an uncritical use of antibiotics, and suggests essential precautions for the prevention of yet graver results in the future.
The article said:
What can be done to improve the situation concerning drug resistance in the intestinal bacteria? A number of measures suggest themselves. In the first place, the use of antibiotics in human medicine should be placed on a more rational footing. Man has been coping with infection since long before the advent of the antibiotics, and he has not lost the mechanisms that enable him to do this. It would do no harm—and from the point of view of the development of immunity it would probably do good—to allow him to resume his personal fight against the less serious infections, reserving the antibiotics for cases in which they are justifiable on clinical or bacteriological grounds, and for infections such as typhoid fever, where they are unequivocally necessary.
Secondly, measures should be taken to improve the practice of intensive farming, in order to limit the initiation and spread of intestinal infection in livestock.
Thirdly, the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry, long overdue for revision, must

be re-examined. The studies of various authors suggest that the antibiotics should be classified under three headings:

1. Those that could be used as feeding additives.
2. Those that could be used in animal medicine.
3. Those that could be used in human medicine."

At the same time, the science correspondent of the Observer wrote an article in which he said:
The Tees-side outbreak of gastro-enteritis, in which 12 babies have died, is adding more fuel to the controversy about the use and abuse of antibiotics.
I think that it was significant that, at about the same time, on Thursday, 1st February, the Daily Mail carried an article headed, "Disease Fears 'Unfounded'", in which it said:
Fears that the widespread use of antibiotic drugs could lead to a massive growth of drug-resistant diseases were discounted last night by … one of the leading drug firms.
At a special conference in London, the group urged the Ministry of Health, the Public Health Laboratory and drug firms to investigate the problem to show how small it really was.
What many of us want to know now is, who is right? I would accept the thoughts of the medical Press as being correct far more than those of the drug firms.
On 28th July, 1966, I initiated a debate on cross-drug resistance, which came under the Ministry of Agriculture, and also dealt with the problems of salmonella typhimurium. I said:
There is no doubt that the build up of drug resistant organisms, both in animals and in human beings, will increase unless a firm approach is made to the problem. Only too often before have I seen the findings of eminent research workers in these fields, when recommendations and papers have been produced, being shelved for future consideration, and the British Medical Association and the British Veterinary Association have supported the views of those doing the research that action should be taken immediately 
with regard to transferable drug resistance.
In reply, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said:
I turn now to antibiotics. Some criticism has been made of their use. The problem of what is called 'infective drug resistance' has been mentioned. There is no evidence based on field experience to show that this problem is in any material degree due to the use of antibiotics in the treatment of animal disease. It would not, therefore, be right to prevent


veterinary surgeons from using these drugs to cure or prevent illness in animals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2059, 2062.]
He said that he was awaiting the report of a joint committee of the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council, and that the Ministry's Scientific Advisory Panel was reviewing the use of antibiotics in food and agriculture.
What has happened since then? With the greatest respect to the Minister, and although I am sure that he recognises the importance of this problem, we are letting this situation drift. I have consistently pressed for further committees to be set up to investigate the position and to try to discover what is going on in this field. I was extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply on 26th March. To my Question,
…if he will set up a new committee of inquiry into the problems of transferable drug resistance",
he replied:
As regards the public health implications of the use of antibiotics in agriculture, I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 19th March. I am not aware of any evidence justifying the setting up of a new committee of inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 246–7.]
Since then, the Ministry of Agriculture has set up a committee. In my debate in July, 1966, I asked that there should be a much better liaison between the two Ministries. The Parliamentary Secretary said then that he was quite satisfied with the present arrangements. I certainly am not.
The Japanese discovered the problem of transferable drug resistance in 1959 and a great deal of research has been done in this country, but we do not seem to be getting any action yet from the Ministry of Health. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what he envisages doing to get more control of this matter.
The Tees-side outbreak was a tragic affair and there are many lessons to be learned. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to this problem. Please may we also have more information about the outbreak? Will he take note of the fact that many people are very disturbed about the way in which

the Regional Hospital Board has handled this? When the Minister's Press release was published, and only under pressure from the Press and hon. Members—because, I think, the Ministry of Health instructed the hospital board—did it send anyone to Tees-side to explain the facts of the inquiry. The board would have been quite happy to leave someone on a telephone in Newcastle to explain to the Press what had happened.
I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming, so that the worries and fears of those on Tees-side about what happened in the past will be allayed.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not wish to prolong the debate or to take too much of the Minister's time, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) covered the problem fully. First, however, I should add my expression of sympathy, which we all share, with the parents of the babies concerned in the incident. We have an example, among other things, of how anxiety has been allowed to grow partly because of ignorance of what has been done, either officially or unofficially, to deal with the problem and of the research on which future proposals will be based.
I wish to make three comments. The first concerns the use of antibiotics particularly in the treatment of patients, especially children, within the framework of the Health Service. It is becoming more and more accepted that it is unwise to use antibiotics for trivial complaints, in many cases simply to shorten the period of treatment, when the treatment of the past has been equally effective—the patient going to bed and staying there and allowing Nature to take its course. That is particularly true of children. The use of antibiotics is particularly unwise in childish ailments from which children recover relatively easily, because it prejudices the effectiveness of those antibiotics later in life. In cases within my family I have felt reeassured when our family doctor has said that there is no need for the use of antibiotics. There is always danger if we use them too freely on trivial matters, because that can build up a resistance which could be critical later in life.
My second comment concerns the agricultural aspect. I am thinking not so much about the build-up of resistance in persons who are being treated as about the transfer of resistance either from other human beings or as a result of catching a resistant strain of an organism from animals. Will the Minister indicate the relative degrees of risk for adults and children, partly owing to the consumption of milk and from other considerations?
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will indicate the extent to which the risks which my hon. Friend described so fully in the use of antibiotics are present with other forms of drug resistance, with the organism building up resistance to drugs other than antibiotics.
This is a curiously well-timed debate because it coincides with a discussion on a related problem in Standing Committee on the Medicines Bill. The discussion in that Committee has shown clearly the veterinary complications which can arise from the treatment of animals, either in curing animal diseases or from the straightforward practice of animal husbandry. I do not suggest that the Minister should go too far in the debate today, gut in discussing the general problem of cross drug resistance, it is important to consider the effect on human beings of the treatment and feeding of animals and the use of insecticides and herbicides. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated what difference, if any, the establishment of a Medicines Commission is likely to make in the methods of dealing with this range of problems in future. Collectively we have been rather slow to reach conclusions in the matter, but much research and much work has been done, and it is reasonable to suggest that some guidance could have been given earlier, even if that guidance had been based on suggestions of probability rather than on any proposals to lay down hard-and-fast-rules or recommendations.
What will be the effect of the passing into the law of the Medicines Bill? Will the Minister comment on the positive side of the research and explain what steps he proposes should be taken? We should all be grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for the objective and serious way in which he dealt with it.

1.36 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am aware that a number of hon. Members have a particular interest in the subject which has been raised by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and I appreciate the very moderate way in which he put the case, when I know that he feels very strongly about certain aspects of it. I am also grateful to him for giving me this opportunity of explaining, at greater length than I have hitherto had the opportunity of doing, the true significance of the events of the latter months of last year in certain of the Tees-side hospitals.
May I deal with a point which he mentioned at the beginning of his speech? He referred to my unwillingness to see him alongside three Tees-side hon. Members who had asked to discuss the report of the Regional Board with me. His request was a last-minute request. The reasons why I said that I should prefer to see him separately were, first, that I understood his interest to be the wider interest which he has developed today of the transfer of drug resistance and, secondly, that I under-estimated the extent of his constituency interest—and for that I apologise. Had I known that his constituency interest was as great as that which he described today, I should have gladly seen him alongside the three Tees-side Members. I ask him to accept that there was nothing suspicious in my suggestion that we should meet separately.
I would express, together with both the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), my deepest sympathy with the parents of the children who died in this outbreak. We must all be affected by any occurrence which causes the deaths of children. But health authorities must discipline themselves, even in an atmosphere of some emotion, to consider these events objectively to see what lessons can be learned from them. The dissatisfaction of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks with the statement which I made in answer to his Question on 7th March stems, I assume, from the fact that he had already formed the view that this outbreak of gastro-enteritis among babies on Tees-side was an event of unusual and exceptional


severity. I emphasise that, having understood and appreciated the feelings of the bereaved parents, it is my duty to assure the House that, in objective terms, the outbreak was not one of exceptional severity. This was the finding of the expert inquiry carried out by Professor Green and Doctor Brewis which was undertaken for the Regional Hospital Board, and which my advisers have endorsed. I tried to make this clear in my statement on 7th March.
I should also emphasise that the inquiry concluded that the handling of the outbreak from a clinical standpoint was perfectly adequate, although it was complicated by an outbreak of acute respiratory illnesses at the same time. There is no desire on my part to understate the seriousness of the event, but it must nevertheless be viewed in proper perspective and, of course, without any desire to exculpate anyone. It is quite inappropriate, for example, to refer to the outbreak, as many Press reports did, as an epidemic, which suggests an event of unmanageable proportions. The number of babies up to the age of one who die from gastro-enteritis each year is, I fear, not inconsiderable. In 1965 the number was 341 in England and Wales, and in 1966, 378.
In his Motion the hon. Gentleman refers to the death of 15 babies. This figure was, of course, obtained from Press reports which were based on statements made by the local hospital group at the time the deaths occurred, and not from my more recent statement. Detailed investigation after the event showed that of the infants found to be infected with the organism known as E.coli 0128, enteritis was regarded as the principal cause of death in 11 cases.
My statement of 7th March referred to 11 deaths and hon. Members will also recall that I stated that of these 11 infants, nine had either been born prematurely or were already suffering from some congenital or other abnormality and therefore less likely to survive an attack of gastro-enteritis. This feature is illustrated in the table of birth-weights of the infants which I provided in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question of 25th March.
In some quarters my statement has been described as totally inadequate—

although it was 1,000 or so words in length. It attempted to present not only the salient features of the outbreak, but also to include also a fair amount of technical explanation. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is difficult briefly and clearly to comment on occurrences which are from a medical and scientific point of view extremely complex.
I am sorry if I failed to satisfy him in this regard. Had I done so, by including a detailed discussion of the bacteriological and epidemiological features of the case—in which I believe he has a particular interest—those most directly concerned might have felt, with some justification, that I was attempting to confuse the explanation by undue reference to sophisticated medico-scientific terms—in short, that I was trying to blind them with science.
I come to some more general aspects of the case. I am aware of the apparent increase in strains of bacteria which have developed resistance to antibiotics, but it is not possible at present to determine whether the source of such resistance originates from the use of antibiotics in human or veterinary medicine.
Most antibiotics of therapeutic value are already controlled under Part II of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, and can be sold or supplied only against the prescription of a doctor, dentist or veterinarian. Regulations permit the use of three antibiotics—penicillin, chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline—to be included at very low levels in feeding stuffs for non-breeding pigs and poultry. This type of control is due to be re-enacted by the Medicines Bill which is now before the House.
The use of other antibiotics—for example, tylosin and hygromycin—which are not at present subject to control under the Therapeutic Substances Act comes within the scope of the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme which operates under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
On the question of whether or not an antibiotic should be controlled under Part II of the Therapeutic Substances Act, I am advised by the Medical Research Council and by the Antibiotics Panel of my Chief Medical Officer's Committee on


Medical Aspects of Food Policy. These bodies, together with the Agricultural Research Council, also advise on the desirability of regulations relaxing this control. In making recommendations, the research councils and the Antibiotics Panel are naturally very aware of the problem of transferable infective resistance.
However, as the House will appreciate, this is a complicated problem. The phenomenon has been studied in the laboratory, but evidence from actual experience is not easy to obtain. It was with this in mind that my right hon. Friend and I began discussions about the expert review body recommended by a joint committee of the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils, known as the Netherthorpe Committee. Hon. Members will know from my Answers to recent Questions that we hope soon to announce more details of this body, which will be looking at the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry And veterinary medicine. I expect that he Veterinary Investigation Service and Ate Public Health Laboratory Service will assist them.
The report of the Hospital Board was mentioned. This was a report commissioned by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, which is responsible for the hospital services in the region. Its authors were not asked to compile a report suitable for publication, and they did not do, o. They prepared a report for the Board, which wished to have an expert assessment of the occurrence from persons not connected with the hospitals concerned so that it might consider what action, if any, by it might be needed to improve the functioning of the hospital services in the region. Apart from commenting in detail on a number of highly technical matters, the report refers to individual patients by name and discusses their clinical progress. It is not the practice to make such information generally available, and publication of the report would, or these reasons, be quite inappropriate.
I should add, to be blunt, that there has been present in this affair an element of exaggeration, even distortion, through-

out this unfortunate occurrence, and although some of the underlying difficulties—for example, those of transferable drug resistance—remain obscure in the present state of our knowledge, I am satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by the publication of the report in full. My statement of 7th March, was intended to fulfil that purpose and it has been amplified by a series of Answers to specific Questions, and still further in this debate.
The Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is now undertaking a review of the organisation and work of control of infection committees, at group and hospital level, throughout the region. I shall be very ready to make available to hon. Members who are interested the results of this review.
On what I might call the management aspects of the case, this conclusion to review the Control of Infection Committees was in my judgment the most important reached by the Regional Board requiring further action. There will, however, be a number of more detailed questions requiring further study by the Regional Board of the hospital management committees concerned. For example, one of the difficulties which arose was the pressure on accommodation, and the Board will be considering whether present arrangements in the Tees-side hospitals need to be improved. I have already made it clear that the outbreak was perfectly adequately handled from the clinical point of view but, even so, I would be surprised if the clinicians concerned did not find a number of matters worth discussing further with their colleagues on medical advisory committees.
I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity to deal at some length with this most unfortunate Tees-side outbreak. I hope that what I have said this afternoon will have allayed any residual anxieties that may linger in the area.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL ILLNESS (AFTER-CARE)

1.50 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: Newspapers and television have in recent months highlighted disturbing accounts of the mentally ill arising from three sources: first, the condition of patients in Shelton Hospital, where a fire caused the death of 24 patients; second, The Guardian inquiry into Harperbury—described as a
… mental hospital on a bad day …
and, third, the kind of staff-patient relations described in "Sans Everything". I suggest that the area central to mental health has been overlooked, and that is the after care of the mentally sick.
I make two propositions, with which I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. The first is that not all mental patients can be adequately treated in hospital; that the patient is likely to return to society if help, support and encouragement are there. The second is that the country cannot afford not to improve its after-care facilities, because, when a patient returns to work he is helping to cut down the incredible figure, in terms of working days lost through mental disorder, depression and nervousness, of £21 million a year from the National Insurance Fund. We ought to note, too, that it represents a loss of about 32 million working days annually.
The scale and cost of the treatment of mentally sick patients has tended to minimise the vital nature of after-care services, but the help given to a patient after a spell in hospital is merely an extension of the care required until he or she is reasonably fit and well again. The fact that one in nine women and one in 14 men in the United Kingdom will spend part of their lives in a mental hospital is a critical matter for after-care. The fact that 5,000 people commit suicide each year, but that 40,000 make the attempt, is also a critical matter for after-care.
When one considers the state of the community's mental health it is especially interesting to observe the way in which Sections 25 and 29 of the Mental Health Act are interpreted—the Sections that deal with the compulsory admission of patients to mental hospitals. For example, the Parliamentary Information Unit on Mental

Health has observed that this varies throughout the country and is a pretty good indicator of local attitudes and quality of community care and other services.
In the Liverpool hospital region, the compulsory admission rate is over 110 per 100,000 of the population, compared with, say, Oxford, with about 50 per 100,000 of the population. These figures do not by any means represent the full extent of admissions, since most patients are admitted to mental hospitals on an informal basis, but they do represent a consequence of certain social conditions. They represent a problem of acute mental illness invariably in young adults and geriatric patients who are often the victims of both physical and mental disorder. The distress to the patient and to the relatives cannot be recorded in mere figures, so that it requires effort to examine the underlying significance.
Studies are constantly adding irrefutable evidence that better community care could reduce the numbers admitted to hospital, but I should like particularly to focus attention on these areas that need priority and urgent attention, and the need to define them. There is increasing evidence of severe mental disorder and stress illness in twilight areas where poverty and high density living are common factors. There is no doubt that overcrowding, unemployment, social classes IV and V—that is, the unskilled workers—are factors present in a preponderance of psychotic illness, but my point is that whilst many excellent and lengthy academic studies are being conducted, these areas need immediate help.
The collection of information on mortality seems to be a general exercise of local authority and Government statisticians, but if we are to provide efficient and effective services we must have information on morbidity. To be aware of suffering in retrospect is of limited value. We know that suicide, the only obvious mortality statistic for mental illness, is 10·4 per 100,000, but what we do not know is the number in our midst suffering the torment of serious mental distress.
We do not even know the numbers of mentally ill discharged into the area of each local authority whose responsibility it is to provide community care. All we


seem to know is that 174,304 mentally disordered persons were under local authority care or supervision in 1966. This figure by no means represents the true numbers discharged from hospital and needing community care. It has been brought to my attention on more than one occasion that consultant psychiatrists ask, "What is the point of referring patients for community care When it does not exist?"
We must be careful, as we examine this very serious problem, that we do not unfairly criticise local authority progress, because a few authorities are glowing examples of what can be done. Yet a glance at the local authority plans for the rest of the country is enough to show the nonchalance that has infected the welfare plan. In other areas, it is near to despair.
An official report on the state of the public health states:
Whilst the ill effect of poor environment and overcrowding may appear to be diminishing, and standards of education are improving, important differences (in health) may still be found in different areas.
It is no surprise to me, therefore, to learn in a recent paper published by the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association that certain areas of East and North London reveal an incidence of mental ill health much in excess of the national average. Information coming to the Parliamentary Information Unit on Mental Health also confirms the findings that this is a factor in the "East Ends" of other cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
What does surprise me, however, and it is a point that received some emphasis in the recent "Man Alive" programme on B.B.C.2, is that the more deprived the area the higher the incidence of mental ill health and the smaller the resources for community care. I am not, of course, suggesting that mental illness is the exclusive misfortune of the deprived. It is well known that all social groups are vulnerable. If my memory serves me aright, even a king was so afflicted—so I suppose that, statistically, the rate amongst kings is very high.
But the number at present in our midst requiring urgent help is certainly far higher among those with negligible resources. There is an increasing belief that those who can afford it, or who can

express their needs, will get a vastly better service than those who cannot. If there is doubt about this, a comparison of, say, Shelton Hospital with The Priory, Roehampton, or of a private appointment with some local out-patient clinic, will clarify the point.
Let us face the fact that the history of psychiatry in this country shows that certain hospitals are excellent examples of achievement, but some are disturbingly inefficient. This is clearly the result of leadership, or the lack of it. I am of the opinion that whilst our hospitals suffer from some material shortcomings, a recent report is right to imply that many of the difficulties encountered are due to inter-personal relationships and an almost paranoid resistance to progress.
In this event there seems a need for inspections of psychiatric hospital services. Not only is there a need for such inspection, but there is also a need that it should be done by an independent body—not just as part of the Ministry of Health because this would present difficulties of self-criticism. On the psychiatric services there is a need for a clear, determined policy to be reinforced by legislation if necessary. But, having treated—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there is a lack of objectivity in connection with the administration of the National Health Service and the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Moonman: I put it this way and relate this to a very considerable experience in business organisation and the like. If I wanted a fairly effective report on the state of an organisation in which I was concerned and of its working, I would certainly make inquiries in the organisation, but I would want further stimulation by inquiries made outside. This is the value of the rôle of the external advice which can be given by consultants.
Having had treatment for the symptoms, and usually by staff having little or no contact with the community, the patient is returned to exactly the same conditions which invariably precipitated the illness. The situation is aggravated by the artificial division of responsibility between the hospital and the local


authority. Most patients are discharged from hospital without consultation with or even notification to local authority staff, who now have the responsibility for their social adaptation. There is also the problem that some communities more than others find it difficult to accept abnormal or eccentric behaviour in their midst and thereby influence the rate of readmission.
We are told that the development of community care is affected by the shortage of social workers. I think it time that we examined the rôle of the social worker. Discussions with social workers suggest that they certainly are overburdened and frustrated by the lack of community facilities. The conventional casework approach to rehabilitation on the "one-to-one" basis drastically limits the number of patients who can be helped. Therefore, there must be thousands who receive no help at all. The fact that the psychiatric patient does not cry out for help is not due to the lack of a problem, but to the nature of the illness or to the effects of drugs which silence the symptoms. Community care must take on a positive rôle, not merely maintain this silence, and enable the patient to fulfil a useful function in his society.
This can be done and it requires a more imaginative approach to the problem. At present what exists of community care is to a great extent a method of containing the mentally injured in the community without the community being aware. Community care should mean what it says—helping the community to care, you and I. To be meaningful it should be done by the individual, not left to a small group of professionals who often have limited awareness of the social milieu of the patient. This is not due to lack of concern but to the cultural distance of the professional. It is not surprising, therefore, that the selection of patients for case work is to some extent influenced by the cultural relationship of patient and therapist.
I draw attention to this, because in East and North London professional workers in the psychiatric field have learned that important lesson of harnessing the good will of lay people and training them to fulfil a useful rôle. They may not have the delicate refinements of those with an academic background but they

contribute effectively to rehabilitation, using innate cultural knowledge, intelligence and compassion from the community itself. This makes sense of the professional worker's time, and he then acts as a catalyst and consultant. This is not a fantasy but already a fact. This is a community caring, but concepts such as this are anathema to the many reactionary areas throughout Britain which are resistant to progress.
Nevertheless, what is painfully apparent is that the areas with a high incidence of hospital admissions are invariably the areas where there is a legacy of substandard housing, overcrowding, high-density living, inferior education opportunities, few pupils staying on for further education, large numbers of children taken into care, large numbers of working days lost through illness, and so on. While we are calculating the significance of these facts we must immediately bring aid to them or at least ameliorate the consequences.
I suggest three areas which my hon. Friend might care to consider. First, there is an urgent reappraisal of our mental hospitals, secondly, an integrated imaginative community care programme, and thirdly, drastic improvements in the twilight areas. In these areas of mental health we perhaps often take for granted the enormous work done by organisations of a voluntary character as well as by the staff of the Ministry itself. I single out two organisations only because in the last two months they have been of particular help to the Parliamentary mental health movement, the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association and the Mental Health Trust, which have been considerably stimulated in their approach in the last 18 months.
Mental illness, while having certain genetic features, is certainly aggravated or precipitated by environmental factors. Drugs, or at worst leucotomy, are no real solution to adjustment to adverse conditions. Neither is it a solution to change the name of National Assistance to that of Ministry of Social Security. Security is our environment, our homes, our work, our relationships, not just pension books. The co-ordination of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security is a step in the right direction, although it is largely concerned with ill health. Real health is more


closely linked with education, housing and employment and the health of twilight areas is dependent on these.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to assure us that he views the lack of impetus in this field as a matter which will receive his immediate attention and to give us details of plans for the immediate future. We must remind ourselves that for every difference in the way men are treated a reason should be given and reasons which are relevant and socially operative.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) for raising this extremely important subject before we rise for the Easter Recess. His speech has shown what we all know to be a very deep knowledge and concern for this problem. I thought when he was speaking of the work that is going on, for example, by the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association and the valuable study it has made of this problem in the East of London.
That brings out very clearly the point he made about the problem being to some extent concentrated in the twilight areas, those areas which, by their very nature, with the resources available to them, find it more diffcult even to deal with the general level of mental illness whereas they often find that it is concentrated in them. What is the cause and the effect I do not believe we know, but we know that there are special problems in areas which are least able to deal with them.
I think one can see here in the whole field of mental illness and mental health a bright side in that the enormous advances which have taken place in medical science with new drugs and the like in recent years have made possible a cure, or at any rate an alleviation, of symptoms which not very long ago were regarded as virtually incurable and the days of the padded cell and that kind of thing, thank goodness, have been removed as a result.
There is also the unhappy side. As life becomes more complex and we all rush hither and thither, the incidence of mental illness tends to increase, and it looks as if it will go on doing so. Not only is this true. of the number of people who, during their lifetime, suffer from mental illness, but unhappily, of the number of

readmissions. Something like 50 per cent. of those who enter hospital for treatment will find themselves back there sooner or later. This is the bleak side of the picture.
Perhaps the key answer to the points the hon. Member made about the need to improve the community care services is to get a better understanding among all those concerned. I think particularly of the three branches of the National Health Service. We need a better understanding among the family doctor, the hospital, the local authority and the voluntary bodies responsible for the after-care service.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education—Cmnd. 3569—gives some valuable pointers for the future. I am glad that it contains what is now generally accepted as obvious but what is quite revolutionary in medical education, namely, the emphasis on the need for training doctors in psychiatry. Paragraph 263 of the Report, dealing with undergraduate medical courses, contains this sentence:
We have repeatedly emphasised that the object of the undergraduate medical course is education and not vocational training; any doctor who remains ignorant of human psychology (both normal and abnormal) must be considered ill-educated, however thoroughly he may be trained in his chosen specialty, because this subject permeates the whole of medical practice.
When this is fully incorporated, as I hope it will be, into medical training, we shall have gone some way towards getting a community of understanding between the various branches of the service, which still tend to some extent to work in isolation and not fully to understand each other's problems.
The more cash and care problems that can be seen as one whole, the better. It is therefore very welcome that the Lord President of the Council will have a broad supervisory rôle over the cash Ministry—the Ministry of Social Security—the care Ministry—the Ministry of Health—and, I trust, the rehabilitation services of the Ministry of Labour, as well as some of the functions now performed by the Home Office, so that there can at least be at the centre a coordinating voice who can try to ensure that all the various aspects of what is, for the individual concerned, one problem are considered as a whole and the


various forces brought to bear in the best possible way.
This is a very wide problem. It is much wider than simply psychiatric social workers in the local authority sphere or the work which voluntary bodies do. It extends to all the factors and all the aspects which make human life worth living and which make for a full and complete life. The obvious and tragic point is that so often someone who has suffered mental illness has no family when he comes out. There is, therefore, the immediate need for friendly neighbourly support which will act in some measure as a substitute for the family unit. This leads directly to the need for hostels and short-stay accommodation in the early stages after people have come out of hospital.
The need for training is another fundamental to the successful cure and rehabilitation of someone who has suffered from mental illness. We have all met the problem time and time again of someone who has been into a mental home. who has probably been cured, or at any rate had his symptoms substantially alleviated, and who has left hospital full of hope for the future. He has probably gone to a training centre or to a rehabilitation centre and taken a course. He has left there, too, full of hope for the future. This is where the trouble often arises. Who is to employ him? Who will provide the sheltered environment which is essential if the cure started in hospital is to be completed? So often this is where the rub comes, the relapse takes place, and the dreary process goes on again.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to put as the essential feature of the success of the process of the cure of mental illness the supporting services which are available in the community. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say, quite fairly, that there has been progress over recent years. I expect he will quote figures of the growing number of psychiatric social workers and the like. I believe he realises, however, that however good mental hospitals may be, unless the supporting services in the community are right, much of the money put into mental hospitals Will—be wasted. It is not only the economic factor—the waste of money—but also the social waste. We have met people who have come out of

mental hospitals full of hope and who have then found that the pressures of life are weighted against them. All the good work is dispersed for want of these key services in the community.
I therefore hope that, whatever else the Parliamentary Secretary says, he will recognise that in these days, and indeed at any time when priorities have to be allocated, there should be no higher priority in the treatment of mental illness than the supporting services in the community.

2.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I am obliged to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) for drawing the attention of the House to the passage in the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education which concerns medical training in problems of mental health. This is a very important matter, because to that list of possible changes in medical education could be added a number of matters which deserve more emphasis in the light of modern conditions. For instance, the general provisions of public health are sometimes not entirely well comprehended by the mass of the medical profession.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) for raising the question of mental after-care services. I take his point that it appears as though mental ill-health is a poverty disease and that the exact association of the two factors has never been properly resolved. Many years ago I assisted in a voluntary organisation for psychiatric social services. I am well aware that the type of patient we had to cope with invariably came from a background of poverty.
I am probably mistaken, but I formed the impression that my hon. Friend had not fully comprehended the Health Services and Public Health Bill, which has now received its Third Reading. Clause 12 of the Bill covers many of the permissive powers, and sometimes obligatory powers, imposed on local health authorities. The Clause will repay very close study. It could be the foundation of the propaganda to educate the public which is so very necessary.
Half the trouble in dealing with unofficial bodies whose aim is to improve the


service and the provision of care or of after-care for mental patients is that so many of the organisations have people behind them who are extremely enthusiastic, who fulfil extremely good jobs, but many of whom are furthering particular forms of psychiatry or mental health reorganisation. Most of these rivalries start from the early days of social psychiatry work and investigation and social psychiatry itself. The position is further complicated by the fact that when adopted or adapted by British organisations these rival schools, many of which were foreign—they are none the worse for that—develop forms of ideas and theories which tend to be slightly confused. This is in the nature of things and, probably, the flexibility which it creates is not only inevitable but in some ways desirable in order that new ideas may be brought forward, studied and put into operation.
The attitude of the public towards the mentally ill has become much more tolerant and understanding in the past few years, but there is still a great deal of ignorance about mental illness, about the services provided for the mentally ill and about the ways in which the community can help the mentally ill and their families. Suspicion and prejudice are beginning to disappear, but some remains. I am sure that public discussion on the problems of mental illness and the means of helping those who are afflicted by it can make a valuable contribution towards better understanding and progressive thinking about the future of the psychiatric services.
Better attitudes on the part of the general public, a greater appreciation of the problems which mental illness presents and an approach which is not merely sympathetic but also constructive towards those who have been through some form of psychiatric illness can in themselves do much to further the after-care of such patients. So often, there are situations in which the attitude and insight of, for example, employers, landlords, housing managers and members of local authorities—to mention but a few—can make the difference between relative success and failure in the process of rehabilitation.
One matter about which we ought to think very carefully is the large and growing section of the population who live in

"bed-sitters". The conditions of life for people who live in bed-sitters—this is not peculiar to London alone—and the whole atmosphere of loneliness and stress are conducive to the development of mental problems. Anything that this debate can do to spread a healthy and positive approach to the problems of the mentally ill will be well worth while.
Mental health is a wide-ranging subject, and my hon. Friend has restricted himself largely to the question of aftercare. The first matter we should remember when considering after-care services for the mentally ill is that the whole pattern of hospital treatment has changed radically in recent years. Many patients can now be treated as out-patients or in day hospitals. Hon. Members will know of the extremely good work being done by the Marlborough day hospital in London.
People admitted to hospital usually need only a short period of treatment as in-patients, though sometimes this may mean admission on two or three occasions before the medical position has become stabilised. Now that patients spend much less time in hospital, the whole balance of the service has changed and far greater provision is now needed for the mentally ill outside hospital who need to be helped towards normal life. Their families, too, need support. This calls for the closest co-operation between the three parts of this service. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North about the need for greater co-ordination. A close examination of what is implied in this connection by the Green Paper mentioned earlier this Session by my right hon. Friend may well have a marked effect.
We aim to build up a fully comprehensive psychiatric service providing all the facilities needed, from early diagnosis to rehabilitation and restoration to normal living. It must be designed to meet the needs and circumstances of the area concerned and be capable of adjustment and change as experience dictates. In the day-to-day provision of services to meet individual needs, a wide range of social services often has to be brought in, including the home help service, the services of the Ministry of Labour disablement resettlement officers, sheltered workshops, industrial therapy organisations, industrial rehabilitation units, the


services of the Ministry of Social Security, the provision of housing, and the services of the children's department of the local authority. All these services must be brought together to make a unified provision.
In general, it is the mental health social worker who has the key part to play. He may be employed by the hospital or by the local health authority, or he may have a joint appointment. Practice varies. But, whatever the form adopted, the basic aim should be the same. The social worker should be fully aware of all the circumstances of his clients and should be able to use his professional expertise and knowledge of the statutory and voluntary services in order to put his client, or his family, in touch with the service which can best help them. One of the difficulties which I have found as a Member of Parliament—I have no doubt that others have found the same—is that it is assumed that people know where to go and whom to ask. But this is not so. As a Member of Parliament, one often has to find out what services can help and how one should go about things in order to help people who are not able to help themselves in these matters.
Unfortunately, there is a shortage of social workers, though I am glad to say that the position has improved. At the end of 1961, the local authorities employed about 1,100 mental health social workers. By September, 1967, the figure was about 1,350. In other words, the force had increased by about 23 per cent. But, despite this increase, the number of unfilled vacancies has been almost doubled in that period, and this situation will probably continue for some time yet. There is nothing new in this. As one level of need is met, more needy cases tend to come to the surface.
Another important element of the local health authority services for the mentally ill is the provision of residential accommodation. Social circumstances and environment, as I said earlier when speaking about the "bed-sitter" population, can be contributory causes of certain forms of mental disorder. Therefore, in some cases, removal from home, or what is called home sometimes, to a more satisfactory environment can prevent a com-

plete breakdown. In other cases, a short period in a hostel after in-patient treatment can make a useful contribution to rehabilitation.
The change from hospital to ordinary outside life is probably so severe in some cases that a staging process ought to be introduced, and in many places it is already in operation. It may be that the discharged patient will need a degree of support for a longer period, and this need can be met in several ways. One useful development is that some hospitals provide pre-discharge hostels away from the main psychiatric buildings themselves. Some local authorities provide hostels. At the end of 1966, there were 80 such hostels with about 1,500 places. Boarding out in a private household may sometimes be an alternative answer to the problem.
In recent years, there have been several interesting experiments in which small groups have lived together with a minimum of supervision. More recently still, some authorities have experimented with bed-sitting rooms and small flatlets where the resident is quite independent, apart from the support and advice of the social work staff. Here, I distinguish between the purely commercial form of "bedsitters" and those bed-sitting rooms or single rooms provided with adequate attendance to ensure that the interests of the people in the building are catered for. Not all the hostels provided have been used as intensively as was at first expected. No doubt, there are many factors at work here. But not the least important may be the changing pattern of in-patient treatment to which I referred.
If I had more time, I should give more attention to what is at present being done. A great deal has been done in the provision of industrial training, under supervision, with a view not only to rehabilitation but to enabling patients actually to get back to normal conditions of outside work. There has been good progress here, giving very satisfactory results in many cases.
Recently, the Ministry of Labour established an agency industrial rehabilitation unit. Other areas are looking at this sort of arrangement. In addition, more psychiatric hospitals have now established day hospitals which offer a range of services, including occupational thereapy and some industrial activity. The number of attendances at these day hospitals


has risen dramatically, from less than:300,000 in 1961 to over 1 million in 1966—though not all these are psychiatric cases.
It is important in the context of this debate to understand the problems which appear to be peculiar to south-east London. There is a large area here where patients with varying degrees of mental ill health have to be catered for. The co-ordination which my hon. Friend stressed is essential. Research on this is being carried out by the Medical Research Council and my Department. At Chichester there is a Medical Research Council unit which has been studying the effect of different hospital admission policies, and we are also doing this sort of research elsewhere.
My hon. Friend has suggested that we should establish a programme of priority areas. The Department at present has no power to provide this sort of grant in aid of local authority health services, which include their mental health services. Nevertheless, some help is being given through the rate support grant as a direct grant from the Exchequer.
This is a very long and difficult subject to cover. I think that although my reply has been rather hurried I have indicated to my hon. Friend that we understand the problem of the areas with particular problems I hope that he will accept Clause 12 of the Bill to which I have referred as evidence of the sort of thinking we are undertaking now in order to provide local authorities with greater powers for after-care.

Orders of the Day — GREEK POLITICAL PRISONERS

2.30 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: There has been some concern since the military coup in Greece on 21st April last year about the position of Greek political prisoners. In the past six months in particular there have been very serious allegations about the torture of some political prisoners. It is because of my concern over the allegations which have been made in various British publications and my belief that there is a need for the British Government to raise the matter in various international bodies that I decided to try to have an Adjournment debate on the subject today.
I am not surprised by the Greek Government's attitude towards the allegations of torture or by the statement made by the Greek Embassy in London earlier this week. I am not aware of any dictatorship in the 20th century which has admitted that it treats its political prisoners badly. Indeed, the surprise would be if the Greek Government or the Greek Embassy in London admitted that the allegations were true or worthy of serious consideration. Therefore, I do not believe that we can give a great deal of weight to what has been said by the official sources in Greece.
In my opinion—and this certainly seems to be so, judging from the articles which have been published—over the 12 months since the military coup in Greece there has been a wave of terror and oppression against the political opponents of the régime and anyone who is likely to be considered suspect by the people ruling that country at present. The Guardian, The Times, and the New Statesman have not only published allegations of torture but have gone into details and published the names of the people whom they allege have been mentally and physically tortured. Only today The Times carries a further report headed, "Torture allegations are smuggled out of Greece", and we have read in The Guardian that its correspondent has now been excluded. That is a very bad step indeed. It is disgraceful that the Greek Government are preventing Mr. Cedric Thornberry from returning to Greece to report on matters there. But dictatorships are very sensitive to journalists who do not stick to hand-outs


from the Governments concerned but carry out their own probes and investigations.
So far there have been two reports by Amnesty International on its investigations into the torture of Greek political prisoners. It is not for me to go into the origins of the organisation. I believe that both sides of the House recognise that it is basically a non-political organisation which has done excellent work on behalf of political prisoners in various countries, fascist or Communist, in African or Asian countries. No one believes that it is politically biased in any way.
In view of the two reports which have been published, I believe that the British Government have a serious duty to raise the whole question of the tortures in various organisations to which we belong—N.A.T.O., the Council of Europe, and one or two other bodies. The first report, issued earlier this year, said that 16 persons in Greece had testified that they had been tortured. The two lawyers, one British and one American, who carried out the investigation concluded:
On the basis of first hand evidence and oral testimony, on the basis of scars on the bodies of those tortured, and on the basis of testimony of professional people and relatives, the Delegation can objectively state that torture is deliberately and officially used and was convinced that the use of torture is a widespread practice against Greek citizens suspected of active opposition to the Government".
The delegation also gave details of the type of physical tortures carried out on the unfortunate victims. It said:
The prisoner is tied to a bench and the soles of his feet are beaten with a stick or pipe. Between beatings the prisoner is usually made to run around the bench under a heavy rain of blows.
Other methods used include pouring water down the mouth and nose while the prisoner is screaming from pain, putting soap in the eyes, mouth and nose, women having their most private parts tortured, and the sexual organs of men being twisted and tortured. I quote these tortures because I believe that the matter is so serious that they should be quoted. The report also said:
Techniques of gagging are frequently reported. The throat is grasped in such a way that the windpipe is cut off, or a filthy rag … is shoved down the throat. Suffocation is prevented only at the last moment.

Beating on the head with sandbags or beating the head against the wall or floor are standard procedure. Many cases of concussion have been reported.
Beating naked flesh with wires knotted together into a whip…
Jumping on the stomach …
Rubbing pepper on sensitive areas of the body …
Pulling out toe-nails and finger-nails.
Different methods of inflicting burns, including putting-out cigarettes on parts of the body.
The use of electric shock.
It is no wonder that a Greek doctor, after examining some of the victims, was reported in The Guardian of 24th November as having said, "We have surpassed our medieval forefathers."
The second Amnesty International report was published earlier this week. The delegation consisted of one British lawyer, Mr. Marreco, who further investigated the torture allegations. The report said:
Out of a total of 12 prisoners seen, 9 said quite definitely that they had been tortured and one said that he preferred not to answer the question. In each case the story they told corroborated all previous evidence as to place and the names of the torturers. The interrogation had taken the form of severe beatings on the soles of the feet … or Electric Shock treatment, the contacts being applied to the ears and other parts of the body.
On behalf of Amnesty International, Mr. Marreco saw one of the people whose name is given in the second report, Mr. Notaras, aged 31, a well-known economist in Greece and research fellow at the Social Science Centre of Athens. He is a member of the Centre Union Party. This economist told Mr. Marreco that he had been tortured with electric shock treatment during 48 hours on the naval ship the "Elli". The other prisoners he saw claimed that apart from the physical torture there is psychological terror. Having been tortured once, they are threatened that there will be a new wave of tortures later and are constantly in fear that they will be taken out and subjected to further physical torture. These are very serious allegations, not based only on reports in serious newspapers in Britain, but on the evidence given by an Amnesty International delegation.
No one can seriously dismiss these allegations out of hand and say that no one should take much notice of them.


it appears to be the case that the ship which I mentioned, the "Elli", is used for questioning prisoners and has been used for torturing a number of them. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can give us his information on that. Apart from the person named in the Amresty International report—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sooner or later the hon. Gentleman must come to Governmental responsibility. He must ask his own Government to take actions that they are able to take.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to give examples of the torture in order to back up my basic case that there is a need for the British G Dvernment to take action. I have stated what seems to be the internal position in Greece in 1968, nearly a year after the military coup. May I quote the attitude of the Minister of the Interior before I mention the actions which I would like my own Government to take? In an interview between Mr. Marreco and Brigadier Pattakos, the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Marreco pointed out that international action might be taken against his Government. The dialogue went like this:
Mr. MARRECO: You could be thrown out. Greece could be thrown out from the Council of Europe.
Brigadier PArrAxos: Let them throw us out.
Mr. MARRECO: Is that what you wish me to go back to London and say?
Brigadier PATTAKOS: You force me to say it. The Greek Government has to protect its people against its Communist enemies. A Communist is not a Greek, he is a Communist first.
Obviously, in Brigadier Pattakos's view, anyone who opposes his régime is automatically a Communist.
I want to refer now to what I consider to be the action which should be taken by the British Government. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Holland took the initiative in lodging complaints against the military régime to the European Commission of Human Rights. The European Commission is looking into the matter now. I regret that it was not possible for the British Government to take the initiative, or to work in conjunction with the Scandinavian countries and Holland.

There is an unfortunate impression, I hope an unjustified one, that the British Government are not too worried about the internal position in Greece.
I believe there is a need for the N.A.T.O. countries collectively to warn the Greek régime to stop the tortures. Publicity is what the Greek dictatorship fears most. They want to carry out their obnoxious and indefensible methods of ruling with as little international concern as possible. They do not wish articles to be published in the democratic countries. They do not want the subject of tortures to be raised in the British Parliament. They do not want continued publicity. We in demcoratic countries have the duty and responsibility to warn constantly about what is happening to the victims of the régime. I would, therefore, like the United States and Britain to warn the Greek Government about the concern that is felt in America and Britain. It has been said that, but for the substantial amount of American aid, it would be virtually impossible for the present Greek Government to remain in power.
I would also like the question of tortures to be referred not only to the European Commission of Human Rights but also to other organisations. I am not permitted to refer to the United Nations, but the matter should be raised in N.A.T.O. There is no reason why the democratic countries in N.A.T.O. should not very seriously consider the future of Greek membership. Is it right and proper that Greece should remain a member of N.A.T.O., bearing in mind the nature of her régime? It must be a clear-cut warning, given not just once, but continually, against the methods used and it must express the concern we feel at the infliction of physical and mental torture.
It is necessary to warn not merely the Greek Government, but all those in Greece who are responsible for torture. Those who issue instructions and the junior people who actually apply the torture should all be warned. I want the democratic Governments to say that the people who are responsible for torturing, either by giving instructions or by carrying out such instructions, will be held to account for what they are doing. The people who are committing the tortures must be told, when there is a change of régime in Greece, that they will not be able—

Mr. Speaker: If there is a change of régime in Greece and if they are called to account, that is a matter for Greece, not for the Minister.

Mr. Winnick: I am arguing that we should give a warning that the people responsible for the tortures will be held responsible and will not be able to escape scot-free.
I have referred briefly to the very serious allegations contained in the two Amnesty reports. There is bound to be continuing concern. Five hon. Members are going as a delegation to Greece very shortly. I hope they will take the opportunity of investigating the torture allegations, and that they will try to see the people named in the Amnesty reports. I shall be very interested in what they have to say when they come back. According to the usual conventions of the House, I wrote to the five hon. Members and told them that I would mention their forthcoming trip.
We have often in the House of Commons over a period of years raised matters which concern citizens of foreign countries. The House of Commons before the war was very concerned about what was happening in a number of foreign dictatorships. It is not unknown for matters of this kind to be raised in the House. I believe we are justified in doing so. We have a duty and a responsibility to the Greek people who are the victims of the dictatorship which came into power last year. I hope that the British Government will take the initiative in raising the matter, and that they will extend the deep concern and the deep anxiety we in the House of Commons have about what is happening in Greece at the present time.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: Hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) for raising this matter. I know the people of Greece are grateful for the interest taken by the House and the country in their present tragic plight. They are, I think, particularly grateful for this kind of debate which raises the issue of anonymous political prisoners and what this Government can do to assist them. The famous are often heard about but anonymous prisoners tend to be forgotten. The suffering endured by

a person who is tortured is just as great whether that person be famous, poor or unknown.
There is a long-standing tradition that the House takes an interest in the sufferings of other countries. There is a long tradition of the interest taken by various Governments, for instance, in the Balkans in the nineteenth century; in what happened in Europe during the war, and now in the people of Greece. The country is famous throughout the world not so much for their physical and commercial attainments but for their traditional defence of liberty.
It will be said by some people that the action proposed by my hon. Friend is interference in the internal affairs of another country. I hope to show that this is not so. First, we have a humane duty and resposibility to care about the suffering of those in other countries, no matter where the suffering occurs. Beyond that humane duty there are certain specific responsibilities. Each country that became a member of the Council of Europe, by virtue of that Treaty surrendered part of its sovereignty in order to give reciprocal guarantees of human rights. This country surrendered part of its sovereignty in that its own conduct could be investigated.
On two occasions the Greek Government have referred the treatment of political prisoners in Cyprus to the Convention of Human Rights. Therefore, by virtue of the Treaty, by virtue of our obligations, we are equally in order in raising the question of the treatment of political prisoners in Greece.
Secondly, within the N.A.T.O. Treaty we have bound ourselves together with Greece, other European countries and the United States to preserve liberty, democracy and the rule of law, that principle being specifically spelled out in the Preamble to the Treaty. Therefore, this is not an interference in human rights, this is the honouring of an obligation by this country, under a number of Treaties, to take an interest in and to pursue the rights of people in other countries. Under no Convention of Human Rights is torture ever justified. There may be occasions when the suspension of certain civil liberties and imprisonment without trial may be justified, but under Article 3 of the European Convention in no circumstances is torture justified. There


can be no escape clause for the Greek Government on that issue. Even if there were no tortures at all I would still be equally interested in raising the question of freedom in Greece. Freed from the gaze of the public, the surveillance of the Press and the vigilance of Parliamentary institutions, torture in Greece goes on.
I should like to relate some personal experiences in Athens, which I visited to observe the trial of 38 students involved in political demonstrations. The students got up to 20 years' imprisonment. I went round a court martial and asked the relatives about the treatment of the prisoners. I was told that in the more serious cases the prisoners were treated very badly. It is, however, difficult to get firm information of this sort. I spoke to the Minister of Public Order and was warned that to talk about politics was an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment. So people remained anonymous because of the risk of imprisonment.
I went to one police station, which is like a Gestapo headquarters, to interview politicians. I spoke to Inspector Lambron, who was in charge of some of the interrogations. I was told that he did not treat prisoners softly but had to use certain methods in order to get information from them. I was told that there were two women in the basement at that time who were being treated badly, although most women were treated well. I saw several well-known, responsible figures, but I cannot quote their names because of the difficulties that they are in. I was told that fingers were being systematically broken with a view to obtaining confessions.
I should be called to order if I went too far in speaking about torture, but I suggest that there is a case for raising the matter in the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and other international organisations. Action has been taken at the Council of Europe. I am glad of the stand taken by some of my colleagues in the House at the Co.mcil of Europe and the support which the Government have given them. I hope that the British Government, if convinced of the allegations that are made, will be willing to make a further reference to the European Commission of Human Rights on the subject of torture,

the Scandinavian reference having been made on the subject of the suspension of civil liberties. I hope that we shall do this in concert with other countries. The premise of agreements that we have entered into is that we should do things collectively to preserve peace and civil liberties. So I hope that the whole matter will be raised in concert in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The whole concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation becomes meaningless if we are prepared to tolerate nations inside the organisation that are not willing to observe the basic premise of the Treaty. It is no use individual nations raising the matter. It is important that the British Government should take a lead in collectively informing the Greek Government that unless they are prepared to ensure the restoration of human rights in Greece the rest of the countries in N.A.T.O. will not collectively, defend a country which has turned to Fascism.
With regard to tourist organisations, it would be useful to make it known that going as a tourist to Greece and aiding the Greek Government by giving them valuable foreign exchange is looked upon with disfavour. People have the right to go there if they want to, and I would not abrogate that right. However, we should act collectively in the spirit which has motivated Western European thinking since the war—that we want to preserve human rights. I believe that great pressure can be put upon the Greek Government. Greece is surrounded by countries which are not friendly to it, and it is vulnerable to Western opinion. It relies greatly on Western European aid, including military aid. It is, therefore, vulnerable to Western opinion that it should cease tortures and bring about freedom and democracy, something which the Greek people and the whole of Western Europe hold dear.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I apologise sincerely to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick). I made a mistake about the timetable for the debate and missed his speech. I am very sorry.
I am about to make what may prove to be a highly unpopular speech with many of my colleagues and with large


sections of the British public who, in my belief, have been misled by political speeches, by sections of the British Press and by recent Amnesty reports about the real facts in Greece.
Mr. Speaker, you and I have been in Greece together. I had the honour on one occasion of translating a speech that you were making to Greek parliamentarians. You and the House know of my very close family associations with Greece, of my home on the Island of Euboea and of the charitable foundation that I and my father set up there. My great-grandfather was a relative of Lord Byron, and he went to Greece in 1832 and settled there. I feel very fortunate in having a home there. I have spent many of the happiest years of my life in Greece, so have my children and so has my father. I love Euboea. I love Greece. I love the Greek people. I believe that it is my duty to this House as well as to them to speak about Greece as I see it without fear or favour.
I am a politician in this House, but not in Greece. I have never intervened in Greek politics. I have been very careful not to do so. I have close personal friends in all Greek political parties. I even have a few in the Communist-controlled E.D.A. Party. It may interest my hon. Friends to know that a few days ago I was sitting in an Athens cafe when an ex-E.D.A. Member of Parliament came up and started talking to me in the presence of two other friends. I asked him how he had been treated when he was detained for about 20 days after the recent ill-fated attempted counter-coup by the King. He told me that he had had exemplary treatment.
I have my own opinions about the new Greek Government which came into power in the revolution of 21st April. I do not propose to develop them now. I should like to on some more appropriate occasion. I shall not develop them now because today we are supposed to be discussing facts, not political opinions—the facts about how the new Greek Government treat their prisoners and detainees and whether or not recent allegations about so-called police torture are true or false.
As a preliminary, I should make clear that the laws under which persons are imprisoned or detained in Greece are the

same as those applied by previous Governments. They are all laws passed by democratically elected Parliamentary Greek Governments in the past. It is this legislation, and only this legislation, that the Greek Government are now applying. This was not the case in the very early days of the revolution when, as with any other revolution, emergency measures were taken.
Secondly, I assure the House that to the best of my knowledge and belief—I have met many of those concerned—the ranks of the city police and gendarmerie in Greece, the prison service, and the officers of the special branch of the police who are charged with security questions are the same officers as were working for previous Greek Governments. Inspector Lambrou has been mentioned. He has been a police officer for 23 years. He did precisely the same job, he tells me, in precisely the same way under the Government of Mr. Papandreou, among others.
Violence is alien to the Greek spirit, as you know, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of military coups in Greece during the last 20 or 30 years, and hardly anyone has been killed in any of them. The great exception was the civil war during and after the Occupation. Up till 1939, Greece had one of the lowest rates of crimes of violence in the world. My father—I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I should say my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker)—tells me that I may quote him in saying that, in more than 50 years, he has never known a case of murder on the island where we live, except by Communist atrocities during the 1947–50 civil war.
To illustrate the extravagance of some of the things said about Greece, a delegation which visited the country recently reported that Greece had had Fascist Governments since 1945. But all the elections since the war, starting with one supervised by United Nations observers including the late Dick Windall, the National Agent at Transport House, have been fair and free—with the possible exception of the last but one of the elections held under Mr. Karamanlis when it was alleged that the troops voted in a way which supported the Government rather more than was entirely natural.
I want to elaborate my recent statement about allegations of police torture in Greece, and to refer to the second report by Amnesty International, because it has now been publicly revealed that it was I who suggested to Mr. Marreco that he should return to Greece and who persuaded the Minister of the Interior to see him and to allow him to interview any prisoners he wished. I asked Amnesty not to reveal my involvement in this matter, but perhaps because of a statement I made it felt free to reveal my name. I had his report translated into Greek, and asked Mr. Patakos to read it. I also asked Mr. Patakos to receive Mr. Marreco and to give him facilities to interview prisoners he wished to see. Mr. Patakos agreed to the request and undertook that there would be no victimisation as a result of Mr. Marreco's investigations.
I believe that there are limits to the interest which foreigners should take in the internal affairs of another country. Greece can perhaps be proud that, be-ca use she first gave the world democracy, many foreign democrats expect higher standards from her Government than from those in many Asian, South American, African, and even European countries, where oppressive and cruel dictatorships still in power came to power by revolutions much more violent than tint in Greece. All democrats hope that re presentative Government will be restored in Greece without violence and upheaval and all civilised people deplore the use of torture by any Government anywhere.
But any organisation seeking to defend human rights and report on them has a duty to conduct its inquiries in a responsible and objective way and to check facts beyond all doubt before they are published. I very much regret to have to tell the House that, in my opinion, the latest Amnesty report and Amnesty's methods of investigation in Greece do not satisfy these requirements.
I was present at two of the interviews between Mr. Marreco and Mr. Patakos. I accompanied Mr. Marreco to Athens police headquarters. I did not stay for his interview with a prisoner there because this might have embarrassed him. Nor did I stay for his interviews with other prisoners because I could not delay a journey to Cyprus. I had a lengthy dis

cussion with Mr. Marreco, his interpreter, and another Amnesty colleague after his return and I also talked to him in Athens and in London before his journey.
Mr. Marreco is perfectly entitled to his own opinions, but he seemed to me to have such strong opinions, and his contacts seem to have been so limited to those who share them, as to make it extremely difficult for him to make an objective assessment of the subject.
Mr. Marreco speaks no Greek. He does not know the country. His assistant-interpreter was working for Amnesty in a manner which contravened longstanding Greek regulations and would not have been tolerated in this country. I am glad that the Greek Government has publicly confirmed that they will give all facilities to the Red Cross and other competent international bodies to make further on-the-spot investigations. I hope that these will clear up any remaining doubts about torture.
I deplore political oppression however and wherever it is practised. The founder of Amnesty is one of my closest personal friends, and I much regret having to criticise Amnesty's report. I hope that Greece will soon return to democratic Parliamentary Government in an orderly manner and that the real facts will soon become known.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Before my hon. Friend sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is lasting longer because a previous debate finished earlier than expected, but it must finish at 3.30.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: I must declare an interest in this matter. I hold office in Amnesty International. I hope that the House will not think that my interest is other than identical with the interests of the human beings most closely concerned with this matter.
No one doubts the good faith and great authority with which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) can speak on matters relating to Greece. But no one doubts, too, that of course the Greek Government does not bring to his notice the way in which these prisoners are treated. I wish that my hon. Friend had not referred to Mr. Marreco


in the terms he used. Mr. Marreco is a member of the English Bar. He was a member of the team which prosecuted on behalf of the United Kingdom at the Nuremberg trials, and the British Government has shown its confidence in his judgment. Mr. Marreco, on his first visit to Greece, spent four weeks investigating. He spoke to prisoners who had been released, He spoke to the friends and relatives of those who were still in custody. He saw the marks of physical torture, in particular the falanga, to which my hon. Friend has referred. He saw the marks of mental torture.
I will not delay the House more than a moment to read one short passage from his report, but it refers to the practice of persuading prisoners to sign statements denouncing those nearest and dearest to them and renouncing their most cherished beliefs. It goes on to say:
The expert in these matters is Mr. Tournas, promoted to be director of Greek prisons under the régime. He begins by getting the prisoner to sign something innocuous, then tears up the paper and makes the prisoner renounce more and more that he holds sacred. The delegation interviewed people who had signed under this pressure, and all were in some sense broken".
It is true that the International Commision of the Red Cross has also had an opportunity of investigating Greek prisons. One would have thought that the régime could derive little comfort from its report. It stated that the camp at Yiourra should be closed and that two camps at Leros were not suitable for longterm detention. It is fair to say that the report said that none of the prisoners still in the camps had complained to the Commission of torture. Perhaps the House will not be surprised to hear that those who are still very much in the power of security police have not gone out of their way to invite reprisals.
I was a little surprised when my hon. Friend stated that the Greek Government had announced that it would give facilities for further investigations. I was under precisely the opposite impression. I derived that from a report in The Times two days ago and from a leader in that newspaper. If it is true that the Greek Government would welcome further investigations, that is something which the House will, no doubt, be pleased to hear and the matter can be followed up.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: May I read the quotation from the Minister who gave a statement on 8th April? It states:
There are international conventions and bodies competent on this subject as well as the Red Cross, and all facilities will be given to these Committees to make on-the-spot representations".

Mr. Whitaker: Is it not surprising that if, as the Greek Government alleges, it has nothing to fear, it is continually expelling independent journalists, including experienced Hellenophiles like Mr. Leslie Finer?

Mr. Archer: I must not delay the House for any length of time. Perhaps on some other occasion it would be possible to take the matter further. I refer hon. Members who are interested in following it up to the report in The Times two days ago.
I want to make only one other point. It has been said more than once that a Government should be reluctant to intervene in the internal affairs of another country. I fully accept that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary must have regard not only to the interests of human beings in Greece, but to the good relations of this country with a foreign country, whatever we may think of its internal régime. That I fully accept.
The matter does not, however, end there. The whole conception of the international protection of human rights entails a general recognition among civilised countries that some types of behaviour by a Government, even to its own subjects, are the concern of the whole world, and on which none of us can compromise our consciences with the pretext of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another country.
All those countries which have accepted the various international agreements and conventions on human rights, including the European Convention, have accepted that in doing so they are inviting world opinion to pass judgment upon their treatment of their own subpects. They are giving their own individual subjects a right of appeal, not only over their heads, but against the Government itself, to the bar of world opinion. This is a new conception. It is the appearance of the individual as a subject in international law. It may be the first step towards a greater and


wider conception of international law and order.
In my view, those who, like the United Kingdom Government, have a very commendable record in this direction, have some responsibility to ensure that now that those institutions are in existence, they will be properly used. When we see a thug beating up an old lady, we do not apply a policy of non-intervention because we might hurt his feelings. It would be a very great pity if this country's remarkable record in human rights were jeopardised now by a reluctance to use the existing institutions.

3.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): IE is now almost a year since the dramatic seizure of power in Athens brought democracy in Greece to an end. I think that all of us. at that time, felt a deep sense of shock at the arbitrary abrogation of constitutional principles. We were aware, of course, of the tragic and searing experience that the Greek people had been through not much over 20 years before, but we had hoped that the wounds had healed and that stable and effective democratic government would become the rile. The strength of feeling aroused by the coup d'état was a measure both of our ancient friendship for Greece and of hopes disappointed that unsettled times were over.
I therefore share the welcome which my hon. Friends have given this short debate, because it is further evidence of the continuing concern in the House about the situation in Greece, and especially questions of human rights. No one in Greece should underestimate the intensity of public feeling or fail to recognise its representative character. There may be a few critics about whose own attachment to democracy there can be doubt, but the vast majority are moved by a powerful and genuine wish to see the people of Greece live at peace and enjoy the freedoms which we take for granted.
The Government hope that these expressions of concern, based upon a fundamental goodwill, will be heard and understood. Despite the fact that a date has been set for the referendum on the constitution and that free public discussion of the proposals has been promised,

the road for a return to democracy may be long. I would mislead the House if I implied otherwise. Meanwhile, the restoration of the freedom of the Press would be a firm step in the right direction. We also hope—I note the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker)—that responsible foreign journalists will not be denied the opportunity of working in Greece.
I come to the particular and distressing issue which is at the centre of our debate today. I have, of course, received both of the reports issued by Amnesty International, and I have read the views of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I have also seen many Press reports, including the one in today's Times, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick). I have had the benefit of talking to Mr. Anthony Marreco of Amnesty International and to other recent visitors. In addition—I shall return to this later—our Ambassador in Athens has kept in close touch with us on all matters involving human rights and civil liberties. We have been aware for some time of reports about the maltreatment of detainees and, since November, of more specific allegations of torture.
May I make the British Government's position quite clear? We are gravely disturbed at these allegations of torture, for the most part responsibly made. There is certainly strong prima facie evidence of people having been subjected to what one would regard as inhuman treatment under police interrogation. This is a serious situation, and one which is exceedingly damaging to the reputation of Greece. It is now up to the Greek Government to convince world opinion that the allegations are unfounded; or, that, if torture has occurred, these were deplorable but isolated incidents which will not be repeated. The best means of ensuring this is to provide the necessary facilities for a thorough inquiry. In our view, full co-operation in the proceedings of the European Commission of Human Rights is the right course.
Let me set out the procedure which has been followed. On the 20th of September last the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Governments lodged applications with the European Commission of Human Rights against Greece under Article 24 of the European Convention.


They were joined a week later by the Netherlands Government.
Under the procedure of the European Commission, once an application under Article 24 is lodged, the Government against which the allegations are made has an opportunity to submit written observations on its admissibility. If the Commission then agrees that the application is admissible, a sub-commission is appointed to consider the merits of the dispute. The applicant Governments submit written memorials on the merits, and the defending Government has the chance to submit a counter-memorial. If the Commission requires further argument or evidence, the applicant Governments may be asked to supply it, and once more the defending Government will be given an opportunity to reply. Finally, the Commission makes its report, which is submitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
In the present case, the Commission pronounced the Applications brought by the Scandinavian Governments to be admissible on 24th January. On 25th March, the Scandinavians went further and extended the scope of their original allegations to include evidence of alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention prohibiting torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners.
I want to make perfectly clear—there may have been some misunderstanding about this—that the action by the Scandinavian and Netherlands Governments has set the machinery of the Commission into motion, that the allegations of torture have been brought to the attention of the Commission, and that they will receive an impartial investigation of a judicial nature. We did not join in the Scandinavian initiative, but we have the greatest sympathy with its aims and hope that it will achieve valuable results. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South had doubts on this score, I have alleviated them.
Hon. Members have again raised the question of drawing the allegations of torture to the attention of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. The possibility was in our minds some time ago when my hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon, South first urged this, as he has done again today. But, in fact, the Committee needs

no prompting. It has received permission to continue the detention centre inspections of Greece which it started after the coup d'état. A delegate went to Athens in January, and he was joined by a doctor-delegate for a fortnight in March.
This was the fifth mission of assistance to political detainees in Greece. As in the course of earlier inspection tours, the delegates were admitted to three camps for exiles on Yaros and Leros, and to the prisons and hospitals which they had visited before. They also went to penitentiary establishments in Athens, Aegina, Crete and Salonica in which persons accused or sentenced for political offences are held, as weal as to the Averoff prison in Athens.
The delegates immediately reported their findings to the Greek Government. They also distributed relief supplies to the detainees and their families and opened at the Greek Red Cross headquarters an office for the transmission of news between detainees and their families.
We thus have a situation in which the International Red Cross is already actively engaged in Greece. I welcome this chance to affirm our wholehearted support for its work. We hope that it will continue and that the Greek Government will extend them full facilities.

Mr. John Fraser: It is general practice for the report of the Red Cross to remain confidential unless its disclosure is permitted, in this case by the Greek Government. Can my hon. Friend say whether it has been disclosed to the British Government?

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Could I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that a number of reports by the International Red Cross have been released? I have them here and they are quite bulky. I believe it to be the intention of the Greek Government to give these facilities for further investigations and to release subsequent reports.

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot comment on this and other effects of the action of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) is correct that the reports are for the Government and it is for the International Red Cross, in conjunction with the


Government, to decide whether to make any specific report available.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Mr. Noel-Baker rose—

Mr. Rodgers: I will not give way. My hon. Friend has had a full opportunity to speak.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The reports have been published.

Dame Irene Ward: I have one here.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We all have them.

Mr. Rodgers: As I was saying it is up to the International Red Cross, in conjunction with the Government concerned, to decide which of its reports are published. We are anxious that all reports produced by the International Red Cross about the situation in Greece should see the light of day. For reasons which are generally appreciated, we established a working relationship with the new régime after the coup and, having paused, following the King's flight, we resumed diplomatic contacts at the end of January.
As the House understands, diplomatic relations do not imply approval of a régime or its methods. If they did, relatively few nations would be on speaking terms with each other. We have concentrated on making direct representations to the Greek Government on the whole range of questions involving human rights and the return of constitutional rule through our Ambassador in Athens, and through the Greek Ambassador in London. In particular our Ambassador carried out instructions to take up questions of civil rights with Greek ministers concerned on five recent occasions.
He has spoken with Mr. Makarezos, the Deputy Prime Minister, and with Mr. Sideratos of the Prime Minister's office, among others. He has had frank discussions on the treatment and release of the prisoners and other aspects of civil liberties. There can be no doubt whatever that the Greek Government are fully conscious that we take all questions of civil liberties very seriously indeed. They know that we regard the continued detention of over 2,400 people without trial as offensive to democratic principles, especially when the Red Cross has reservations about the conditions in which at

least some of them are held. In particular they are aware that allegations of torture are a real obstacle to international friendship and understanding.
I cannot tell the House that these representations will be decisive. It is often easier for Governments to modify their policies in response to what must essentially remain confidential exchanges than to appear to bow to public protest. The point is this: an initiative has been taken in the European Commission of Human Rights, and we hope that it will be productive. The International Red Cross is involved and its good offices will continue. We see our rôle as being complementary. One line does not exclude the other. On the contrary, each increases the prospects of results.
As for other moves, suggested by my hon. Friends, for example involving N.A.T.O., I do not think that they will take us any further. On the contrary, they might vitiate, at least in part, the effectiveness of our representations. Gestures are empty unless they really help those most in need. This can be the only measure of their worth. I would add that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights debated Greece earlier this year. We would have been prepared to support any effort to find out the facts of the situation, but the majority in the Commission was not ready to go even this far. As the tone of speeches has shown, for many friends of Greece the last year has been a very sad chapter in a glorious history. They have been deeply wounded by events and moved by much that has seemed cruel and misjudged. We must hope, nevertheless, that those in Greece who carry responsibility and wield power will move forward steadily to a restoration of democratic liberties and human rights. We shall all rejoice when Greece emerges from the dark tunnel of her present discontents.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I have in my hand the reports published by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva following visits to Greece in July, 1967, December, 1967, and March, 1968. In addition, we have the categorical public statement by the Minister concerned in Athens on 8th April inviting further inspection of prisons by the International Committee of the Red Cross and offering to publish those reports. Is my hon. Friend not aware of these reports?
If not, will he allow me to hand them to him?

Mr. Rodgers: I am certainly aware of those reports, but there is a more recent report. As I stated, it is the International Committee of the Red Cross alone and not the British Government who can decide whether a report should be published. I said that we hoped that the Greek Government would continue to provide facilities for the International Committee. If the International Committee wish to publish their reports, we shall be very glad.

Dame Irene Ward: If the report mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) is handed in, can it be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that that would be in order, but I see no reason why it should not be available in the Library of the House.

Orders of the Day — NEW HOSPITAL, NEWCASTLE

3.27 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: A month or two ago I attended a very important meeting in the Newcastle General Hospital. I was not there as a guest but in a capacity which I hold in relation to some of the organisations connected with the Health Service. It was a conference of many people connected with the Health Service and it was held in the new postgraduate section which has recently been built in the grounds of Newcastle Hospital.
While I was there my attention was directed to the plan for the proposed new Freeman Hospital which is to be built in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I had the advantage of many people present at that meeting of hearing views of the plan which was displayed. I fully realised that if I had not been at the meeting I probably should not have had an opportunity to see the plan, and I was grateful, for a variety of reasons, that I was able to see it. Certain details were pointed out to me with great annoyance, anger and criticism by the very distinguished company present at the meeting. The plan showed, in the main corridor of the hospital, that the mortuary was to be

adjacent to the dining room. That, naturally, did not commend itself to those connected with the hospital service in my part of the country.
On 20th February I put down a Question to the Minister of Health asking whether he was aware of the criticism of the plan and whether he would take action to see that the mortuary was not placed next to the dining room. He replied:
No plans for this hospital have yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 74.]
It is a pity that in hospital planning, which is the key to our whole hospital service, the Minister does not have in mind the plans that are being prepared by the Ministerial architects. I was not satisfied with that Answer, so on 23rd February I tabled a Question to the right hon. Gentleman asking for
… an assurance that no plan for the Freeman Hospital … will be agreed to by him which includes a dining room adjacent to a mortuary".
I received what seemed a reasonable reply, for the Minister told me:
Yes. I am informed that the Hospital Board has never contemplated such an arrangement ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February. 1968; Vol. 759, c. 204–5.]
I wondered if I had not read the plan correctly or that, in having it pointed out to me, I had failed to appreciate its detail. I accept that in many instances the layman is not able to read plans of this sort adequately. Instead of tabling another Question, I wrote to the Minister explaining exactly what had happened. I wrote that I hoped that in the Questions I had asked I had not reached an incorrect conclusion, particularly having regard to what I thought was a reasonable assurance from the Minister. On 14th March I received this reply from the right hon. Gentleman:
You wrote to me on 29th February following my reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the Freeman Hospital, Newcastle. The position is that the Regional Hospital Boards are responsible for planning individual hospitals, assisted by general guidance from my Ministry. The Regional Board architects are producing the plans for the new hospital to be built on the Freeman Road site, the design of which is at a relatively early stage.
I have not, as I said in reply to your earlier Question, yet received final plans for the hospital for consideration by my Department because the Regional Board is still at work


upon them. My advisers will have an opportunity to study the plans when they are formally submitted by the Board.
No date was given about when the plans were expected. The letter went on:
Meanwhile I understand from the Board that as the draft sketch design stands at present, the mortuary will be on the same floor as the dining room but remote from it, in fact 60 yards away.
That is not my idea of remote. The letter went on:
It will have two points of access, one of which will be on the opposite side of the building from the dining room and from which will go bodies leaving the mortuary for the hospital grounds. Access to the mortuary from the main corridor will be via pairs of double doors forming air locks. The mortuary will have full extract ventilation. Its position reflects the opinions of the consultant pathologist.
The letter contained this significant sentence:
The relationship is, of course, even so riot what one would ideally like to see and special attention will be paid to it and the internal traffic flow arrangements when the plans are submitted to me.
The letter concluded:
Yours sincerely, Kenneth Robinson.
As far as I can see, the Minister was interested only in giving me the architectural points about the mortuary. I was not criticising the architectural design of the mortuary. I would not be in a position to do that. I am perfectly satisfied that the mortuary will be situated in such a position that it would be adequately provided for. The Minister need not have wasted his time telling me about the architectural details.
It is reasonable to suppose that if a mortuary has access from a main corridor down which pass hospital staff, visitors, patients and the whole range of people whom one always meets in great hospitals, it will have an effect on them. I am concerned, as were those who showed me the plan at the meeting, by the reaction of people going to the dining room and having to pass the main entrance to the mortuary.
We know that there is a great deal of happiness in hospitals, and that wonderful things happen there of which we are all very proud, but there is also a great deal of sadness, and sickness and final failure there. I do not think that it will add greatly to the happiness of the hospital staff, who give such great service

to the nation as a whole, if their meal breaks, which intersperse periods of very hard work, are taken in such conditions. They are not likely to be made happier by having to pass the entrance doors to the mortuary when going to the dining room.
As I say, my purpose is not to complain of the architectural detail of the mortuary. I believe that no one in his sane senses, planning a new hospital, could think it right to put the doors to the mortuary on the main corridor leading to the dining room. It is an absolutely first-class psychological blunder.
In the final sentence of his letter the Minister agrees that this is not an ideal plan. I think that when we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on new hospitals that will probably last 50 years, we want an ideal plan. We do not want a plan that is not ideal, but one that is acceptable and suitable, and the best we can provide.
During a recent visit to a big hospital in Yorkshire I spoke about this matter of the mortuary and the dining room. If I understood correctly what was said to me, this is a new standard design for hospitals. If so, it is quite intolerable. A day or two after I was given that information I noticed that the Minister had publicly announced that we are to standardise hospitals. If that is so, the standard design must presumably come from the Ministry, and be taken out of the hands of regional hospital boards. If we are to have a standard design, I want to be sure that it is the very best design from the point of view of the treatment of the sick and the comfort of the staff. These things are not incompatible.
I have a great respect for the Minister, even though I do not often agree with him. I know that he is desperately interested in this matter. I simply cannot understand how he can say that this is not an ideal situation and go on to say that matters of traffic flow will be dealt with when the plan comes to him. That is nonsense because he or someone should have seen the plan at the earliest stage. We would wait for years for hospitals to be designed if they could be proceeded with only after the plans had been submitted in that way. I am absolutely horrified by the whole thing.
If the Minister and all concerned, regional hospital boards, pathologists, matrons, doctors, nurses, radiographers and all the rest have no chance of saying anything about a plan, I do not think we should be satisfied with Ministerial architects. I do not know whether the Ministry employs private architects, nor whom they are. Perhaps the Minister will listen to me. He does not need to get information now; he should have had it long ago. Who are the architects? Are they paid by the Ministry, or does the Ministry engage private architects? If there were private architects in this case I should like to know who they were. I should like to make a fuss and to know what extraordinary architects designed this hospital. I want answers to these questions. The present plan does not satisfy me. It does not satisfy those working in the hospital service in the North, and it certainly will not satisfy all those who are looking forward to the new Freeman Road Hospital to be established in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
While I have the great good fortune of having the Parliamentary Secretary present, I wish to raise another question. It refers to architects. My father was an architect and I do not like criticising them. I am not all that keen on them, however, if this is to be the kind of design which they bring forward for a hospital, unless they have been told that this is the most economical way of dealing with the matter, that the Minister is proposing that they should cut down on the space and have the mortuary adjacent to the dining room.
Not long ago the first-class medical administrator at Preston Hospital in my constituency was very worried because there were not enough pre-natal beds there. He was of the opinion, although he could manage with the maternity beds which were available, that there were mothers who should be in hospital before their children were born so that doctors could keep an eye on them. It worried him and the whole of the staff in that very efficient hospital that there was not accommodation for pre-natal cases. The hospital had a little land available and the medical administrator could easily have had a small ward established at not great expense which would enable him to keep an eye on

women whom he thought should be in hospital before the birth of their children.
The administrator had to obtain permission from the regional hospital board. Once he approached the board, the architects descended. By the time they had prepared their plans, the sum required to build the small ward in accordance with the architect's design was so enormous that the scheme had to be abandoned. The right hon. Lady who is now the key pin on economic matters should be told that my constituency would have increased its productivity if it had not been for Ministerial architects. Productivity agreements are needed for professionals as well as for industrial people. I do not like the present arrangement.
We did not get our small maternity ward. If we make this suggestion again I suppose the costs will have mounted to such an extent that we shall not be able to have the little ward. All this information came to me legitimately. It cannot be said that I saw something that I should not have seen or that somebody showed me something that I should not have been shown. I always pay attention to what people in the North of England tell me. They often know much more than the toffs in the Ministry of Health, whom you cannot get at. It has taken me an inordinate amount of time to raise this matter.
The Minister did not say that he would withdraw the plan and ask the architects to produce a new one. He merely said:
The relationship is, of course, even so not what one would ideally like to see and special attention will be paid to it and the internal traffic flow arrangements when the plans are submitted to me.
What on earth does that mean? If the design is such that the mortuary is on the main corridor adjacent to the dining room, how can the Minister deal with the traffic flow, if the doors which he described in such detail are there and if the bodies must go through the mortuary from the main corridor out into the hospital grounds? How can he alter all that when the plans are submitted to him? I repeat that the situation is absolutely deplorable.
I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me the channel of communication for architects' plans for


hospitals. Who sees these plans? It is no good saying that the consultant pathologist is satisfied with the design of the mortuary. What has he to do with the nurses, visitors, doctors, medical staff, and so on? It is the most deplorable letter on such a subject that I have ever received. I look forward to receiving a satisfactory answer so that, if we are to go in for standardised hospitals, I shall know that we shall have first-class hospitals which, though they cost a great deal of money, will last a long time.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I am following the debate with considerable interest, as the hospital in question, the Freeman Road Hospital, is in my constituency, and the catchment area which it will serve as a district general hospital is principally in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). Moreover, it will be situated only a few yards from my own front door.
I have noted the legitimate complaint of the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) with some interest. I merely observe that, if the mortuary is to be situated 60 yards away from the dining room, then, unlike the hon. Lady, I should regard that in building terms as a considerable distance, certainly sufficient to meet the major part of the abjection which she raised. However, I regard it as a legitimate complaint, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on future planning of hospitals in this respect.
I believe that, for several months—certainly up to a few months ago—many consultants in the area have been conducting a persistent sniping campaign against the whole conception of a third hospital at Freeman Road in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Now that they have been defeated on the principle of the thing and the third hospital project has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend, I hope that there will now be no persistent rearguard campaign. I say that although I am in no way opposed to people seeking improvements in the plans for hospitals, even at this stage. Indeed, one reason for the delay in the finalising of some of the plans arises from the very pressures of the consultants themselves to have the plans changed.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady accepted, as we all must do now, that there will be a third hospital in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. As a district general hospital, it will serve a catchment area comprising 150,000 people, principally in Walker, Byker, Heaton, and High Heaton in my constituency and South Gosforth and Longbenton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walls-end. It is only right and proper, therefore, if we are to have such a key hospital for the area, that it should be architecturally right. I accept that point from the hon. Lady. But I hope that we shall not, over the next few years, have a continuation of the sort of sniping we have had from the consultants during the past year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow) rose—

Dame Irene Ward: Before the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) sits down—

Mr. Snow: No. I must make my reply. The hon. Lady spoke for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Member, having already spoken in this Adjournment debate, may speak again only with the leave of the House.

Dame Irene Ward: I was not going to speak—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was pointing out that the Minister may speak again only by leave of the House as he has already spoken in this Adjournment debate.

Dame Irene Ward: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to say—

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I shall not give way. May I have the leave of the House to speak a second time?
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), who did not consult my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), must take responsibility for the terms in which she expressed her complaint against the architectural plans for this hospital. I am sorry that she did not speak to my hon. Friend. If she had,


we might, conceivably, have had a more balanced point of view given. However, I concede at once that the specific point which the hon. Lady raised about the location of the mortuary is a perfectly justifiable one to raise. I do not resent it at all, and I hope to give her a reasonable explanation of what is going on. Before coming to that, however, I shall refer to her secondary point about the Preston hospital.
The position regarding the Preston hospital is not as the hon. Lady stated it, and neither is the development to which she referred at all conditioned by the factors she outlined. A scheme for the provision of six extra ante-natal beds at Preston hospital was first put forward in 1961. But the Board did not consider this scheme of sufficient priority to be included in its capital programme. Since then, various representations have been made to the Board, but the position as regards priority has remained unchanged. It is now apparent both to the Board and to the Management Committee that the provision of additional maternity beds in the south-east Northumberland area is not of first priority. This is due to the change in the length of stay of patients and the effects of the provision of additional maternity beds in the Newcastle and Wansbeck areas. However, the board has included in its capital programme for 1971–72 a scheme for the upgrading of the maternity unit at Preston Hospital at an estimated cost of £80,000.
I now turn to the main subject the hon. Lady has raised. She has taken a keen interest in the development of hospital services in Newcastle, as has my hon. Friend, who has been in correspondence with me. I am grateful to both hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to say something about the way in which we plan the building of a hospital. This is important in view of some slight misconceptions the hon. Lady had about what goes on. I should like to emphasise how much care is taken at all stages to ensure that proper solutions are found to the many complex problems which accompany hospital development. At the same time I hope to allay the hon. Member's apprehensions on certain specific features of the development proposals for the new hospital at Freeman Road.
First, I should like to explain briefly what happens when it is proposed to build a new hospital. After a detailed assessment of needs has been carried out by the hospital authority in whose area the hospital is to be built—in this case the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board—the Board's planning group prepares a working brief for the project team of doctors, nurses, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and administrators appointed to see the project through to completion. The brief sets out the operational policies agreed regionally, the outline project policy, the provision made in the Board's capital programme, the content, timing and so on. In assessing the content, the planning group naturally has regard to norms of hospital provision, existing facilities which can be expected to continue to function, and those which will become redundant as the new hospital is developed. When completed, the brief is submitted to the Board, which, if it is acceptable, then passes it to the Ministry.
At this stage the Board's proposals are examined very carefully by the doctors and other professional officers in the Ministry concerned with planning. Their considerable expertise, fortified by their experience of processing similar schemes throughout the country and a knowledge of development in other countries, is brought to bear in advising the Board on both content and cost. The proposed development is thus moulded at the outset into a shape which ensures the correct balance of hospital facilities at a cost which the country can afford.
It then falls to the Board's project team to undertake the detailed planning of the new hospital on the basis of the brief which has been provided to it. For this purpose the Board may use the services of architects employed by it or may engage private architects, but whether the scheme is designed by the Board's own staff or by consultants, the architects are, of course, represented on the project team.
The first job of the project team is to make an evaluation of the several sites which might be suitable for the new hospital, with particular regard to size and shape. This is very important, because site conditions influence the shape of the buildings which can be placed


upon the land and these in turn have an important bearing upon the cost of providing the required services and upon recurrent expenditure. The team's object, therefore, is to select a site which will enable the hospital to be provided within the cost limits prescribed and which will keep the "on-costs" to a reasonable level. "On-costs", as hon. Members will know, are the costs which stem from a decision to build on a particular site and cover such items as roads, drains and other services. These can account for very substantial sums, and a careful site appraisal is very necessary to ensure that the layout of the buildings is such that the "on-costs" attracted are themselves contained within the amount which is set aside for them. In the case of hospitals we aim to keep the "on-costs" below 50 per cent. of the aggregate cost of the individual departments. That is to say, the total cost of a new hospital should, given reasonable site conditions, be no more than 1½ times the cost of the provision of the departments and supporting facilities.
Having selected a site which will meet these criteria, the team is required to produce a development control plan. We are now getting to the nub of the right hon. Lady's point. I have had to explain this in greater detail so far because I had hoped to speak to a slightly wider audience than is here this afternoon.
The team is required to produce a development control plan, including draft sketch designs, showing how the various departments which go to make up the new hospital, together with the ancillary services, will be laid out. The reason for this is obvious. The various departments of a hospital are required to function as a unit and it is essential, before the planning is far advanced, to see that departments which are dependent upon one another are created in such a way as to enable them to operate smoothly and with maximum economy in the use of highly-trained staff. These problems are of enormous complexity in the case of hospital development, and when a hospital is to be built in several phases over a period of years, as many of our hospitals are, the need to define the overall picture at the outset is imperative.
In preparing the development control plan the team has access to a wealth of

detailed information, including experience drawn from other similar projects, the views of the staff who will ultimately work in the new hospital, and last but by no means least in importance, the ample design guidance which has been issued by my Department in the form of building notes, and other technical documents. This, of course is backed up by a free exchange of views between the professional officers engaged upon the scheme and those in the Ministry concerned with planning. Indeed, the development control plan is a vital link in the building of a new hospital, because once this plan has the approval of the Ministry, the Board is free to go ahead with sketch designs and subsequently to detailed design and tender provided the cost does not vary from the cost limits which have been laid down.
I hope I have convinced the hon. Lady of the extremely careful consideration which is given at all stages to the content, shape, position of departments, staff consequence and future running costs of new hospital development. I have gone into this rather fully in order to put the present status of the plans of the proposed new hospital at Freeman Road into perspective.
The stage which has been reached in the planning of this hospital is the formulation of the development control plan. This was received in the Ministry recently and is now being studied by a team of Ministry experts. The provisional floor plans do indeed show the staff dining room and kitchen on the lower ground floor, and leading off the same corridor, some 60 or more yards away, the internal entrance to the mortuary. Let me explain the thinking which lies behind the siting of a mortuary. It ought to be near the pathology department and have direct vertical or horizontal communication with it. The pathology department in turn must be conveniently placed in relation to operating theatres, wards and out-patients, and the out-patient department should be planned on the ground floor. So it is in this scheme. The Board plan to have the out-patient department at ground floor level, with direct access to X-ray, pharmacy, pathology and physical medicine departments. Since the mortuary should have direct communication with the pathology department, and since it would


obviously be highly undesirable to bring mortuary trollies through an area to which patients and visitors have access, it can only, in this instance, go below the pathology department. To site it above the pathology department would be impracticable in this case, because of the requirement for external access and the problem of getting across a lift hall accessible to patients and visitors. It has been proposed, in consequence, to locate the mortuary on the lower ground floor where, owing to site characteristics, it can conveniently be provided beneath the pathology department, with the direct vertical communication to that department which is desirable.
Similar arguments apply in the case of the staff dining room. It should be near the kitchen—it is in fact adjoining the kitchen in the Freeman Road scheme—and the kitchen should be as close as possible to the main circulation to the wards and, at the same time, close to the central stores, which require external access.
The proposals have one disadvantage however. To reach the mortuary from inside the building it would be necessary, under present plans for traffic flow, to bring covered trollies down from the wards on the upper floors of the building and to wheel them from the lift past the staff dining room. I say "from inside the building," because, as hon. Members will understand, there must also be an external access to the mortuary; but it would, of course, be impracticable to take trollies from the wards to the mortuary using an external route. The route at present planned allows for access to the mortuary without contact with patients, visitors and other members of the public, and I should add that, as is customary in all hospitals, every endeavour would be made to avoid moving trollies at inappropriate times.
Having said this, I recognise, however, that there is this objection to the present plan, and I can assure the hon. Lady that alternative solutions are at this moment being examined. The professional officers of the Ministry pay particularly close attention to the development control plan, because this is the latest point at which modifications can be incorporated into the scheme without running the risk of

abortive expenditure and work on planning. Together with my officials, I have gone over the draft sketch designs, and we think it may be possible to overcome this difficulty. I understand that the Board is only too ready to look at this again and would welcome suggestions from my Department, which it will receive.
Planning, then, is still in the formative stage. When sketch plans are ready, which is expected to be by about the middle of May, they will be scrutinised by the Board's project committee. If the problem has not been resolved by that time, the Committee will be asked to decide, and the members of the project team will be able to put their views to the Committee to enable it to reach a decision. The Board will still have to aprove the plans, which will probably go to it by about the middle of June.
Finally I should mention the plans for Freeman Road and the possibility of using them for other hospitals in the region. I can set the hon. Lady's mind at rest here, too. I made the point earlier that the site often conditions the shape of the buildings which can be placed on it, having regard to the requirement that the project must be completed within specified limits of cost. The site characteristics at another place in the region might be very different from those at Freeman Road. What the Board has in mind is to try to use in other schemes some of the work done on rooms in departments, because it seems to it that some of these at least are capable of adoption as standard. Such measures reduce the time which needs to be spent on planning this detail, thus freeing the time of skilled and scarce staff for other more important work.
The hon. Lady mentioned the question of a standard hospital. I should like to put her right on one point. I think she is referring to what departmentally we call the "best buy" hospital. The main intention is to standardise as far as possible not only design but components and equipment. This is still very much in the experimental stage. It does not mean that we will have 100 hospitals in the country of exactly the same pattern, but in our view major economies can be achieved in design, equipment and components by this sort of project.

Orders of the Day — THAMES BARRAGE

4.8 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I wish to speak briefly on this important subject of the risk of flooding in the London area and the need for a barrier or barrage because there are at least three other hon. Gentlemen who 'wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before the Minister replies to the debate.
As Chairman of the All-Party Group on the River Thames, I speak for a number of hon. Members who are interested in the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) particularly has asked to be associated with what is being said, and so has the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker).
There is a very real risk of an exceptional disaster in London from a North Sea surge and consequent flooding over a possible area of 60 square miles of the Greater London area. London has no insurance policy against this whatever. It surely would be prudent to pay a substantial premium even if it were up to about £50 million. The flood defences of London were just adequate to meet the 1953 floods, which were 3 ft. 8 ins. over spring tide. But in 1962 in Hamburg the flood level was 13 ft. above spring tide, nearly three times the normal of the 1953 floods, with terrible consequences to Hamburg, including the deaths of hundreds of people.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to imagine what this would mean to London. The embankment at Charing Cross and here is well below the top tide level. So is York Road at Waterloo, as well as other districts. One can imagine that, if the tide was, say, 3 ft. over the walls of the Embankment, it would pour down into the Underground. The District, Bakerloo and Northern Lines, would be inundated and out of use for months. Professor Bondi, in his useful report, said:
… I feel the extremely serious damage envisaged by Mr. Dunton"—
the Chief Engineer of London Trans-port—
would result. The tunnels would be filled with water, mud and debris, electrical equipment would be irreparably damaged by long immersion, etc. Services would be interrupted certainly for several months and possibly for a

whole year. This would, then, be one result of a major surge flood.
Over one million passengers use these Underground lines. They would be clogging the streets trying to get to work by bus or car. The Ministry of Defence would be flooded. The Cable and Wireless building further along the Embankment would also be flooded, as would the Houses of Parliament, other Whitehall Ministries and the G.L.C. on the other side of the river. I believe that the telephone system in this area along the river would be in chaos and that the business of the City of London would be halted, as would the business of the Government.
Professor Bondi's full report on the London flood barrier proves that the risk is real even if the floods were only a foot or so above the 1953 level. Why do we think that the risk of this surge is considerably greater than it was even a few years ago? First, geologists and geographers tell us that the South-East of England is sinking at the rate of between 7 and 12 inches every century. Therefore, even since 1953 the South-East has sunk an inch or so.
Secondly, the Meteorological Office says that in the 1960s, for some unknown reason, the proportion of northerly winds in the air is exactly double what it was in the first half of the century. We all know that it is the northerly winds which blow the surge down the East Coast.
Thirdly, there has been something odd about the tides. As a yachting man, I follow this closely. Last year there were 25 occasions when there were surges of more than two feet above the predicted tide level, and in 1967 there were 20 alerts recorded by the G.L.C. of possible flooding in the London area.
After the Boat Race last Saturday I went up the Thames in a motor boat with Lord Simon, Chairman of the Port of London Authority, as far as Teddington Lock. I was astonished to see, with the tide one foot above the predicted level, how high it was up the embankment walls at Kew and Putney. It was within about six inches of the top in what was regarded as a normal tide plus one foot. In addition, the Waverley Committee pointed out in 1954 that if in 1953 the surge of water over Teddington weir had been 20,000 cubic feet per second instead of 2,500, the flood in London would have been nine inches higher.
Since 1953, I am sorry to say, there has been a long story of delay over this matter. In 1954 the Waverley Committee, in paragraph 91, recommended that urgent decisions should be reached about a flood barrier for London. Then there were reports from consultative engineers, Messrs. Rendell, Palmer and Tritton, and Sir Bruce White, Wolfe, Barry and Partners, on two types of barrier of a movable type, costing between £25 million and £30 million. These reports were completed in 1965 and in January, 1966, were put in the Library of the House for our study at my request.
The Greater London Council has, I am glad to say, taken the bull by the horns in this matter. It has given a contract for £80,000 to the Hydraulics Research Station, at Wallingford, to make a deep and detailed study of the River Thames from Teddington down to Southend. I admit, as, no doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, that the Government are giving assistance to that contract. The research station is, of course, a Government establishment.
I have visited the Hydraulics Research Station and the officials there are building a model of the Thames from Teddington to Southend. They will study all the conditions of tide and flood which could possibly occur. They are highly experienced in this work because they have built models of the River Plate, in the Argentine, and rivers in Egypt and in other countries, such as New Zealand. All that experience from all over the world will be gathered together for the study of London's river. It seems to me that it will take about two years to complete. I have no doubt that at the end of it the research station will probably recommend that there should be either a movable barrier or a permanent barrage as flood protection for London.
When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I would like him to say that when the report is received from the Hydraulics Research Station the Government will act upon it immediately and not drag their feet a day longer. During the last two or three years, there have been persistent warnings from all kinds of sources concerning the flood danger. There was an interesting colour supplement in The Observer at the beginning of December The warnings have come from a number of people, not least from hon. Members.
If the Hydraulics Research Station recommends either a new barrage at Purfleet or, say, a permanent barrage with locks somewhere near Woolwich, if either of those was desirable I hope that the Government would opt for a barrage with locks. A barrage somewhere between London Bridge and Woolwich would give us very great amenities. It would have the advantage of ensuring a steady river at about three-quarters of the normal tide level. It would be a beautiful river, like the Seine in Paris, or the Charles River in Boston, where such a permanent barrage with locks has been built. There would be no difficult tidal conditions in London. It would, no doubt, help lighter-men, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) may be able to tell us, and passenger boats would be able to ply on regular schedules up and down the river.
I agree that with a permanent barrage the defences below Woolwich would have to be strengthened. No doubt the walls at Woolwich and on the other side of the river below the barrage would have to be raised in height. This is a subject on which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) may be able to say something.
The Port of London Authority has always been rather nervous of the building of a barrage of a permanent nature because of siltation. As Member of Parliament for Twickenham, however, I cannot see what is in the siltation problem. We have locks at Teddington and other places higher up the river and I have never found any great problem about siltation below the locks.
Holland, a country which is about one-eighth the size of our own, is spending no less than £250 million on barrages at the mouth of the Rhine delta for protection and for other purposes. In my view, we should not boggle at spending up to £50 million to protect from inundation and total disruption London, one of the great capitals of the world.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will be replying at or before a quarter to five. With co-operation, it should be possible for all throe back-benchers who still wish to speak to do so.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has been able to initiate a debate on this important subject. Although, statistically, it is possible to argue that the danger of flooding, which the hon. Member admirably outlined, is remote, nevertheless, because of the possible consequences of a surge, which the hon. Member has described, opportunity must be taken by the Government seriously to (onside- the problems of a Thames barrier.
Further, it gives an opportunity for the Government to consider doing something about the River Thames in its commercial and amenity sense. A Thames barrier provides just this sort of opportunity, because I believe that the commercial use of the Thames is greatly underestimated. With a Thames barrier, by removing the tidal stream altogether, it would be possible to develop effectively passenger transport so that, with the use of hovercraft and hydrofoil forms of water transport, the river would really come back into its own.
I believe also that it is essential, if we go in for a barrier, for it to be as far down the river as possible. I would like it certainly below my constituency. I think that it should be at the bottom end of Long Reach so that there would be the longest stretch of river that we could manage. I believe, too, that proper consideration should be given to locks for smaller craft as well as for the bigger vessels.
This certainly raises the whole question of the Port of London Authority's plans for the development of the lower reaches of the Thames in respect of the siting of new docks. If we are to have a barrier, it may be looked upon by some as impeding the progress of ships or lighters. The lightermen are convinced that a Thames barrier would assist them in their trade and not damage them.
Apart from the opportunity thrown up by a comprehensive review of the commercial opportunities of the Thames, easily the gravest issue facing the House today is the danger of flooding. It is possible, although it could be argued that perhaps it will not happen for 100 years, on a suitable flood tide at the end of this week, with the surge conditions

which have been described in operation, for people in central London to be flooded. If it were timed during a rush hour on a "hot" spring tide, it is possible that many people would perish if they happened to be in the Underground system at the time.
As there is this danger, however remote, the problems of a Thames barrier should receive urgent consideration. I therefore hope that the points I have made about a comprehensive review will be examined at the same time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give some hope that, as a result of Professor Bondi's excellent study, the Government will take a decision which will lead to action as soon as possible.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate the significance of the fact that this debate has been initiated by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who is the Chairman of the all-party group in the House concerned with amenities and flood protection on the Thames. This is a matter which has agitated Members who represent constituencies along the banks of the Thames. It is a matter in regard to which we shall increase our activities and our pressure on the Government to take positive action for the protection of our constituents.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman referred to the initiation of the first reports into London flood protection that arose from the 1953 floods. It is a matter of regret to everybody that 15 years after those disastrous floods we are still without any positive action, although there have been many reports.
The question of London's Underground presents very serious problems. In paragraph 20 of his report to the Minister, Professor Bondi recommends that there should be a trial physical evacuation, during a peak period, of those using the Underground. I regret that this recommendation has not been adopted by the Government. I believe that it should have been, because there are millions of people on any day of the week in London who are at risk when they use the Underground while the Thames is


unprotected from North Sea surge. There is urgent need for a decision.
The hon. Member for Twickenham said that there were 60 square miles of London unprotected. That is 20 square miles more than I had in mind. But hundreds of thousands of lives and a very great deal of property are at risk. Professor Bondi, in paragraph 24 of his report, says that delay invites disaster to London, and I agree with him.
There is one point on which I am not in complete agreement with all Members who represent constituencies along the Thames, and that is the priorities for what should be done—whether there should be a barrier or a barrage. My view is that, although we want the amenities of the Thames to be increased, we must get our priorities right. The first priority in developing the Thames must be flood protection. Any amenity improvement which comes after that is all well and good.
I turn to my constituency problems. A large part of Erith and Crayford lies low down by the Thames. There is as well the Thamesmead Development, which is being carried out by the Greater London Council, another 60,000 people are to be housed as a deliberate act of policy by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and by the G.L.C. on an area which is known to be subject to flooding and which has been ravaged in the past by the Thames bursting its banks. It would be criminal to put another 60,000 people at risk without having erected a barrage on the Thames to give protection, not only to the new Thamesmead residents and existing residents in my constituency, but the hundreds of thousands of people who reside along the Thames.
Professor Bondi, in paragraph 8 of his report, says:
It is, of course, nonsense to say that it is impossible to quantify the cost of a human life.
In paragraph 9 he says:
On this basis, then, we can again look at relatively minor disasters involving perhaps the death of 50 people there or a hundred people here in much the same probability calculation as for the minor economic disaster.
If the report has in mind people who live in my constituency, 50 deaths there or 100 deaths here are not minor disasters. They are disasters of immense

and unspeakable magnitude, and it is because of this that we demand positive action be taken.
The Hydraulics Research Station is to carry out research. I believe that, when it has done so, it will come to the conclusion that the barrier should be erected at the lower reaches of the Thames, about Purfleet and Long Reach, because I believe that that is the inescapable conclusion. The moment that the report is published, the Government must act. They will have no further excuse for delay and continuing to invite disaster to London.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. W. Howie: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for raising this very important matter. From his speech and others, there can be no doubt about the importance and gravity of this question.
I do not have a constituency interest in the Thames as Luton is some way from the Thames, although admittedly the River Lee runs through Luton and eventually makes its murky way into the Thames. My interest arises from the 10 years or so which I spent with one of the consulting engineers who submitted the reports. I did some of the simpler calculations in the 1958 report and in the more recent report. The more difficult calculations were done by more sophisticated engineers who were better at arithmetic than I was.
Two points arise from the present situation. In a Written Answer on 20th February to the hon. Member for Twickenham, the Minister of Housing and Local Government pointed out that the Greater London Council intended to consider the possibilities of both the movable barrier and the fixed barrage proposals for flood control, and:
… to investigate, in conjunction with the Port of London Authority … the relative advantages of these two types of structures and the most suitable site."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 59.]
I find this question of raising the matter of the site again slightly odd, if only because after the first consulting engineers' report, a steering committee was set up, representing various authorities and Ministries—Housing, Agriculture, Transport, the L.C.C., as it was then, the Port of London Authority, Essex and Kent River Boards, Trinity House, and others.


The committee was set up in 1959 and it found that there was unanimous agreement that the site should be in Long Reach:
… in order to protect the whole of London down to and including Erith".
Those concluding words should please my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).
My point is that the steering committee, which reached a unanimous decision, has now been overtaken by a second and more recent investigation to decide, among other things, the most suitable site. I cannot see any great justification for that. I wonder why the change in Ministerial attitude has been made. The only due I have been able to find lies in the hand-out published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government at about the same time as the Written Question to which I referred. In that the Ministry said:
The fact that the consulting engineers could not agree on a design made it clear that the advisability of a movable barrier at this site was open to question.
I find this a highly questionable and very frail conclusion. There were two consulting engineers involved in the report, and they were agreed that a retractable barrier in Long Reach was feasible. They disagreed on the design.
I was involved in some of these discussions, and do not find this disagreement particularly alarming, because, after all, a project of this kind and magnitude had never been attempted anywhere before. In that context, it seems unreasonable to suppose that there should not be a certain amount of disagreement—disagreement which could readily have been resolved. If anything, that disagreement probably showed the inadvisability, not of Long Reach, but of appointing two consulting engineers instead of one.
The design problem was imposed upon the consulting engineers by the requirements insisted on by the navigation authorities for a 1,400 ft. opening. I am not a sailor, but I would have thought that it would have been possible to take a boat through an opening rather smaller than 1,400 ft. I was interested to see that Professor Bondi suggests openings of, I think, 700 to 800 ft. On the strength of the sentence I have quoted, the G.L.C. h as been asked by the Ministry to set

up a new inquiry with new terms of reference. I have no doubt that the G.L.C. will do this extremely well, but it will go over the ground which the consulting engineers have already been over. It will do it with great expertise, and I have complete confidence in its capacity to do the job.
I am a little saddened that several years of engineering investigation, hard thinking and hard work, in an urgent situation, have now become almost academic—not quite academic, because in the tidal calculations done at the time, an engineering dynamic relaxation method of total prediction was evolved, which has later been valuable for three-dimensional stress calculations for power stations and other places. So it has not been a total loss. There has been a little technical spin-off from the proposals.
There is only one question which the Minister should be asking and which they should answer: is there a likelihood of flooding on the 1953 scale or worse? If there is a likelihood of such flooding, are the Government prepared to spend the money which is necessary for flood protection or will they merely advise people in the flood area to step up their insurance a little and to cover the physical loss which they may suffer? This situations has dragged on for top long. It is 15 years almost to the day since the 1953 flood. The Government should make up their mind, if possible without setting up any more inquiries or asking for any more reports or investigations. They can look at the reports which they already have, make up their minds and decide.

4.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this subject, because it is clear from what has been said on both sides of the House that it is time that the Government said something about it. When someone as fair-minded as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) can say that it is time that the Government looked for no further excuses for delay, it seems to me that I ought to put the position before the House precisely as it has been over the years.
I will deal first with the question put, as an engineer, by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). He asked whether there was a likelihood of a disaster. The answer is, "No", because if he uses the word "likelihood" in any strict mathematical sense, then in terms of probability the chance of a surge comparable with that of 1953 is one in 100, and the chances against a surge much bigger are very much greater. The short technical answer to my hon. Friend, therefore, is that this is not a likelihood.
That is no sense gets away from the human problem which always arises where there is a risk, however much the mathematicians may say that the chance of it happening is less than one in 100. If one is about when it happens, that is little consolation. I recognise that there is a feeling that one can never be sure that this will not happen again unexpectedly and suddenly.
But the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) overplayed the point about risk. He was unwise to do that, because it is disquieting to the public to be told by their local Members that there is a substantial risk. There is not. But it could happen, and I do not in the least want to be complacent about about recognising that we must consider with great care what ought to be done. I cannot completely discount the factor of cost, because to some extent we are choosing between comparable risks. There are other risks of perhaps even greater gravity than this, and if we are to spend money at all, then those other risks might be met before this risk is met. Nevertheless, it has never been the Government's view that we should should shut our eyes to the seriousness of the problem and not consider what we ought to do.
In considering the shocking surge of 1953 I wish to recapitulate the history of the matter and, while I do not wish to weary the House, I must point out that my interpretation of this history is slightly different from that of the hon. Member for Twickenham. The Waverley Committee was set up in 1954 by the then Government as a result of the flooding in 1953. That Committee did an efficient and quick job. After it reported, technical investigations were undertaken by the

Department and the details were published in a Blue Book in 1960, entitled "Technical Possibilities of a Flood Barrier".
At that time immediate objections were raised by the Thames navigation interests. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton came into the picture at that point. Two consultants were appointed and were asked to design a retractible barrier of about 1,400 ft. in width. They reported at the end of 1965, when a Labour Government were in office, and it is correct to say that they could not agree on a design. One proposal would have cost £23 million and the other £39 million.
It is interesting to note that they ruled out the idea of a barrage, although the hon. Member for Twickenham is still interested in that concept. At that time there was only one type of barrage which they could consider—only one that was worth thinking about—and for this purpose it would have been the wrong one. If we were going to build a barrage now, the proposals put forward at that time in connection with a barrage would not have been adopted. In other words, it was not the sort of barrage that we would adopt if we were to do this work today.
This is a hidden factor in the situation. Technical knowledge of this problem has been developing all the time and attitudes have been changing rapidly. In considering what steps to take, my right hon. Friend was, therefore, faced with two conflicting reports. It was at that stage that he asked Professor Bondi to make a re-examination of the whole problem. He had to see if another site could be found and look at the Long Reach site to assess its implications. Professor Bondi reported on 22nd July, 1967. Tribute has been paid to his report and it has been quoted. The very fact that hon. Members have gone to Professor Bondi for their quotations shows that we were right to set up the Bondi inquiry. To put it another way, it should not be suggested that we should have taken an immediate decision when we were faced with two conflicting reports from the consultants and a wave of objections at the time from the navigation interests. We were, therefore, absolutely right to have set up that inquiry.
Professor Bondi thought that the most economical defence compatible with navigational requirements would be a


movable barrier in the vicinity of Dagenham or Woolwich, upstream of Long Reach. That immediately arouses the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, who, of course, would want it to be as far down river as possible. This is a case of the gathering of opinions, of the need for agreement, and of complaints about an obstinate Minister standing in the way of something being done.

Mr. Howie: It is important to remember that Long Reach does not silt up. From the technical and engineering point of view, the tide there clears the river and makes it convenient for this purpose.

Mr. MacColl: I have more than once incurred my hon. Friend's wrath when he was a Whip. I do not intend to become involved in an argument with him on a technical matter of which he has great knowledge. I am arguing the case for a technical examination and a recognition of the fact that the problem is changing all the time. I want to make it clear that once Professor Bondi had reported, the initiative was with the Ministry. The picture of our doing nothing and of the G.L.C. then taking the bull by the horns is not the right picture. We in the Ministry saw the importance of taking action.
The Greater London Council is the local authority responsible for the problems of London's river. It was set up by the last Government—the greatest, wealthiest and most skilled local authority in the world—precisely for the purpose of taking from the central Government responsibility for detailed decisions on the problems of the Metropolis. By aw, responsibility was given to the Greater London Council. It was there-`ore not for us to say that we would not consider the views of the local authority of the area. We are not dealing with a small authority responsible for a population of about 5,000, asking the borough engineer to run something up on the back of an envelope, but with a tremendous vocal authority having available to it great resources and technical and professional skill—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: It is all very well for the Minister to say that this is a matter only for the G.L.C. To begin with, the Long Reach is not in the G.L.C.

area. The area is much bigger than that of the Greater London Council, and involves also the P.L.A. and the navigation interests.

Mr. MacColl: The G.L.C., as convening authority, is responsible for getting action. The Herbert Report again and again makes a point of the importance of having in London a local authority which can take initiative about cross-river problems, main drainage problems, and so on.
We reached a position where we asked the G.L.C. to look into the problem and it was at this stage that the new idea of a fixed barrage as opposed to the barrier came in. At least, it is said to be new, but I am advised that the first proposal for a fixed barrage was made in 1780.
There have always been two objections to that proposal: first, it would delay shipping, which would have to pass through locks and, second, siltation would raise the cost of dredging—something which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton is more capable of assessing. It would also be very expensive to construct. On the other hand, there are amenity advantages, but as soon as that was mentioned one of my hon. Friends at once said that amenity must always be subordinate to the preservation of life.
We must therefore ask ourselves: are we looking at this as an amenity exercise, which might cost £100 million, to provide a pleasurable place for Londoners, or are we thinking in terms of expenditure essential to save life?

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I know that my hon. Friend is referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) but I made the separate point that there is commercial advantage to be derived from a permanent Thames barrier.

Mr. MacColl: I only make the point that these are matters to be taken into account. To give it a certain amount of perspective, I might say that £30 million for a barrage—and it might cost a great deal more—is about 15 years of country parks expenditure. That is big money.
It is true that the situation has changed because of changes in the docks and because of technical change, and it may very well be that a fixed barrage is the


answer—I am not qualified to argue that. But we have to ask ourselves: what sort of fixed barrage? I am advised that on our existing knowledge the cost of a fixed barrier might be anything between £20 million and £100 million. We have to consider in the light of developing knowledge and developing changes in the Port of London what is the most practicable and effective thing to do.
That is why the G.L.C. decided to hold this inquiry. It said that it wanted to get on with the inquiry untrammelled by too much interference from us. It wanted freedom to look at everything and not to be on tight leading reins of the central Government. It is right that a big and proud authority should feel like that. It wants to look at the whole matter and we are not in any way holding it up. I hope that it will go on and do this.
I saw that the leader of the council said that a barrage is better than a barrier, but to say what type of barrage there should be is very difficult without seeing the results by use of various models and the technical investigation that has to be made. I think the G.L.C. is right to have this inquiry. From it we shall get some information which will help us in assessing what is the best thing to do.
I do not want to leave the impression—I hope it will not be left by the debate—that London is trembling on the brink of disaster. The probabilities are very much against that happening. We watch carefully to keep up-to-date the methods of giving alarm and so on.
I was asked whether the Underground authorities could employ an evacuation scheme. I do not know that that would be wise. We have enough troubles with rush-hours without suddenly deciding to have evacuation schemes of that sort. If the transport authority, which has responsibility for paper exercises can satisfy itself that it has the situation under control—

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does this mean that the Minister and the Government have rejected outright paragraph 20 of Professor Bondi's report, which makes clear that Professor Bondi positively recommends a physical evacuation of London's Underground because of this great danger? Have the Government rejected that recommendation out of hand?

Mr. MacColl: It is not for us to do that. It is for the transport authority to decide whether or not to do it and I understand that the authority does not consider it practicable.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Bondi report was made to Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Government have it within their power to say that they accept or reject the recommendation. Will my hon. Friend give a positive answer; do the Government accept or reject that recommendation? This is most important.

Mr. MacColl: I do not think we can take one paragraph of the report as a single issue and say whether we accept or reject it. We certainly do not feel on existing evidence that it is for us to issue a formal direction to the Underground authorities to do this. Those authorities says that it is not a very practical thing to do, and we think they are right. We keep an eye on the warning systems to see that they are up-to-date and that there is no risk of people forgetting their importance. We are waiting for the report from the Greater London Council, which we hope will come soon—the quicker the better—then we can see what is the best thing to do.
My final word is that we should draw this lesson from what I have said. The fortuitous chance of uncertainty about what to do and the differences of view on the matter have led to a changing situation so that hon. Members in the House today are saying things which they would not have said if we had acted in 1965.

Mr. Howie: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that he was wrong when he said that the consulting engineers came into the picture in 1960 following the issue of the Blue Book? The consulting engineers submitted a report in September, 1958, and that preceded the Blue Book.

Mr. MacColl: I apologise for having said that. I did not intend to mislead the House. My notes have the sequence the wrong way round.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday, 23rd April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 8th April.